From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Dietmar Eggeman <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>,
Neeraj upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Rate limit calls to update_blocked_averages() for NOHZ
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:14:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <366aa93b-ecbf-ac0f-cd9e-3376b20d4929@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtCYU2AW3sJ-=QJ=hE+tFHS8wUBZ9vSsZp8q2AozxeA5mQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/18/21 3:28 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>
>> The current logic is when a CPU becomes idle, next_balance occur very
>> shortly (usually in the next jiffie) as get_sd_balance_interval returns
>> the next_balance in the next jiffie if the CPU is idle. However, in
>> reality, I saw most CPUs are 95% busy on average for my workload and
>> a task will wake up on an idle CPU shortly. So having frequent idle
>> balancing towards shortly idle CPUs is counter productive and simply
>> increase overhead and does not improve performance.
>
> Just to make sure that I understand your problem correctly: Your problem is:
> - that we have an ilb happening on the idle CPU and consume cycle
That's right. The cycles are consumed heavily in update_blocked_averages()
when cgroup is enabled.
> - or that the ilb will pull a task on an idle CPU on which a task will
> shortly wakeup which ends to 2 tasks competing for the same CPU.
>
Because for the OLTP workload I'm looking at, we have tasks that sleep
for a short while and wake again very shortly (i.e. the CPU actually
is ~95% busy on average), pulling tasks to such a CPU is really not
helpful to improve overall CPU utilization in the system. So my
intuition is for such almost fully busy CPU, we should defer load
balancing to it (see prototype patch 3).
Tim
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-18 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-22 15:46 [PATCH] sched/fair: Rate limit calls to update_blocked_averages() for NOHZ Joel Fernandes (Google)
2021-01-22 16:56 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-22 18:39 ` Qais Yousef
2021-01-22 19:14 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-01-25 13:23 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-26 16:36 ` Qais Yousef
2021-01-22 19:10 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-01-25 10:44 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-01-25 17:30 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-25 17:53 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-01-25 14:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-27 18:43 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-01-28 13:57 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-28 15:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-01-28 16:57 ` Qais Yousef
[not found] ` <CAKfTPtBvwm9vZb5C=2oTF6N-Ht6Rvip4Lv18yi7O3G8e-_ZWdg@mail.gmail.com>
2021-01-29 17:27 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-02-03 11:54 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-02-03 13:12 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-02-04 9:47 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-02-03 17:09 ` Qais Yousef
2021-02-03 17:35 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-02-04 10:45 ` Qais Yousef
2021-02-03 19:56 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-03-23 21:37 ` Tim Chen
2021-03-24 13:44 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-03-24 16:05 ` Tim Chen
2021-04-07 14:02 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-04-07 17:19 ` Tim Chen
2021-04-08 14:51 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-04-08 23:05 ` Tim Chen
2021-04-09 15:26 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-04-09 17:59 ` Tim Chen
2021-05-10 21:59 ` Tim Chen
2021-05-11 15:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-05-11 17:25 ` Tim Chen
2021-05-11 17:56 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-05-12 13:59 ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-13 18:45 ` Tim Chen
2021-05-17 16:14 ` Qais Yousef
2021-06-11 20:00 ` Tim Chen
2021-06-18 10:28 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-06-18 16:14 ` Tim Chen [this message]
2021-06-25 8:50 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-02-01 15:13 ` Joel Fernandes
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=366aa93b-ecbf-ac0f-cd9e-3376b20d4929@linux.intel.com \
--to=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.