From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751758AbbC0FHl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:07:41 -0400
Received: from g4t3425.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.53]:28926 "EHLO
	g4t3425.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751046AbbC0FHk (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:07:40 -0400
Message-ID: <1427432841.2788.10.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sched: Improve load balancing in the presence of
 idle CPUs
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, peterz@infradead.org,
        mingo@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pjt@google.com,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, efault@gmx.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
        jason.low2@hp.com
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:07:21 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20150327021201.GA4491@kernel>
References: <20150326130014.21532.17158.stgit@preeti.in.ibm.com>
	 <20150327021201.GA4491@kernel>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 10:12 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Hi Preeti,
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 06:32:44PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> >
> >1. An ILB CPU was chosen from the first numa domain to trigger nohz idle
> >load balancing [Given the experiment, upto 6 CPUs per core could be
> >potentially idle in this domain.]
> >
> >2. However the ILB CPU would call load_balance() on itself before
> >initiating nohz idle load balancing.
> >
> >3. Given cores are SMT8, the ILB CPU had enough opportunities to pull
> >tasks from its sibling cores to even out load.
> >
> >4. Now that the ILB CPU was no longer idle, it would abort nohz idle
> >load balancing
> 
> I don't see abort nohz idle load balancing when ILB CPU was no longer idle 
> in nohz_idle_balance(), could you explain more in details?

Hi Wanpeng,

In nohz_idle_balance(), there is a check for need_resched() so if the
cpu has something to run, it should exit nohz_idle_balance(), which may
cause it to not do the idle balancing on the other CPUs.