From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: wakeup_affine_weight() is b0rked - was Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Scale wakeup granularity relative to nr_running
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 03:49:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <807ad42763f4b2a9f831a3ed93fe0d1b94449520.camel@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGsJ_4zAN-K_OrhC8wec9nyXxbP+sS_-N4djvaUYYVuYj+zbyQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2021-10-04 at 10:06 +1300, Barry Song wrote:
>
> What is the topology of your hardware?
It's an i4790 quad+smt.
> shouldn't select_idle_sibling find some other idle CPUs in CPU7's LLC
> domain? Why are you always getting CPU7?
The box is busy. It's running a parallel kbuild as well as the
desktop, firefox and their various minions (et al.. kthreads).
> one thing bothering me is that we are using the load of a single CPU
> in wake_affine_weight(), but we are actually scanning the whole LLC
> afterwards.
The question wake_affine() is answering is one from the bad old days of
SMP, of pull the task to toasty data, or make it drag that data across
horrible hardware. LLC came into the equation much later. With it, and
big boxen with several of them, the wake affine question became mostly
about which LLC, but not solely. There's still L2 to consider, and
there's even a valid time to stack two communicating tasks like in the
bad old SMP days.. say when there would be a man-in-the-middle of the
conversation if wakee were to be left on its previous CPU.
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-04 1:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-20 14:26 [PATCH 0/2] Scale wakeup granularity relative to nr_running Mel Gorman
2021-09-20 14:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Remove redundant lookup of rq in check_preempt_wakeup Mel Gorman
2021-09-21 7:21 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-09-21 7:53 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-21 8:12 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-09-21 8:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-09-21 10:03 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-20 14:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Scale wakeup granularity relative to nr_running Mel Gorman
2021-09-21 3:52 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-09-21 5:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-09-21 7:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-09-21 10:36 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-21 12:32 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-09-21 14:03 ` Mel Gorman
2021-10-05 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-09-22 5:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-09-22 13:20 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-22 14:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-09-22 14:15 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-09-22 15:04 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-22 16:00 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-09-22 17:38 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-22 18:22 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-09-22 18:57 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-23 1:47 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-09-23 8:40 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-09-23 9:21 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-09-23 12:41 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-09-23 13:14 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-09-27 11:17 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-27 14:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-10-04 8:05 ` Mel Gorman
2021-10-04 16:37 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-10-05 7:41 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-27 14:19 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-09-27 15:02 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-23 12:24 ` Phil Auld
2021-10-05 10:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-05 14:12 ` Phil Auld
2021-10-05 14:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-05 10:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-05 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-05 9:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-09-22 15:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-10-05 9:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-03 3:07 ` wakeup_affine_weight() is b0rked - was " Mike Galbraith
2021-10-03 7:34 ` Barry Song
2021-10-03 14:52 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-10-03 21:06 ` Barry Song
2021-10-04 1:49 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2021-10-04 4:34 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-10-04 9:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-10-05 7:47 ` Mel Gorman
2021-10-05 8:42 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-10-05 9:31 ` Mel Gorman
2021-10-06 6:46 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-10-08 5:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-09-21 8:03 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-09-21 10:45 ` Mel Gorman
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=807ad42763f4b2a9f831a3ed93fe0d1b94449520.camel@gmx.de \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.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.