mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: reduce busy load balance interval
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:34:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <jhjbli65ddv.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtBmNF8WrXLrnQow037bk=7z285ub7yLp2KdFQcJK1fsUw@mail.gmail.com>


On 16/09/20 08:02, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 21:04, Valentin Schneider
> <valentin.schneider@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14/09/20 11:03, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > The busy_factor, which increases load balance interval when a cpu is busy,
>> > is set to 32 by default. This value generates some huge LB interval on
>> > large system like the THX2 made of 2 node x 28 cores x 4 threads.
>> > For such system, the interval increases from 112ms to 3584ms at MC level.
>> > And from 228ms to 7168ms at NUMA level.
>> >
>> > Even on smaller system, a lower busy factor has shown improvement on the
>> > fair distribution of the running time so let reduce it for all.
>> >
>>
>> ISTR you mentioned taking this one step further and making
>> (interval * busy_factor) scale logarithmically with the number of CPUs to
>> avoid reaching outrageous numbers. Did you experiment with that already?
>
> Yes I have tried the logarithmically scale but It didn't give any
> benefit compared to this solution for the fairness problem but
> impacted other use cases because it impacts idle interval and it also
> adds more constraints in the computation of the interval and
> busy_factor because we can end up with the same interval for 2
> consecutive levels .
>

Right, I suppose we could frob a topology level index in there to prevent
that if we really wanted to...

> That being said, it might be useful for other cases but i haven't look
> further for this
>

Fair enough!

>>
>> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
>> > ---
>> >  kernel/sched/topology.c | 2 +-
>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> > index 1a84b778755d..a8477c9e8569 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> > @@ -1336,7 +1336,7 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl,
>> >       *sd = (struct sched_domain){
>> >               .min_interval           = sd_weight,
>> >               .max_interval           = 2*sd_weight,
>> > -             .busy_factor            = 32,
>> > +             .busy_factor            = 16,
>> >               .imbalance_pct          = 117,
>> >
>> >               .cache_nice_tries       = 0,

  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-16  8:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-14 10:03 [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: Improve fairness between cfs tasks Vincent Guittot
2020-09-14 10:03 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: relax constraint on task's load during load balance Vincent Guittot
2020-09-14 10:03 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/fair: reduce minimal imbalance threshold Vincent Guittot
2020-09-15 19:04   ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-16  6:53     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-16  8:33       ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-14 10:03 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: minimize concurrent LBs between domain level Vincent Guittot
2020-09-15 19:04   ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-16  6:54     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-14 10:03 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: reduce busy load balance interval Vincent Guittot
2020-09-15  9:11   ` Jiang Biao
2020-09-15  9:28     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-15 11:36       ` Jiang Biao
2020-09-15 12:42         ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-16  1:14           ` Jiang Biao
2020-09-15 19:04   ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-16  7:02     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-16  8:34       ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2020-09-14 11:42 ` [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: Improve fairness between cfs tasks peterz
2020-09-14 12:53   ` Phil Auld
2020-09-14 16:03     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-14 15:50   ` Mel Gorman
2020-09-14 16:04     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-18 16:39   ` Phil Auld
2020-09-18 17:27     ` Phil Auld
2020-09-15 19:05 ` Valentin Schneider

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=jhjbli65ddv.mognet@arm.com \
    --to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome