* [PATCH v2 2/2] sched/fair: Don't increase sd->balance_interval on newidle balance
2018-09-26 15:12 [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Cleanup load_balance() condition Valentin Schneider
@ 2018-09-26 15:12 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-11-04 0:13 ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Valentin Schneider
2018-10-30 10:27 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Cleanup load_balance() condition Valentin Schneider
2018-11-04 0:13 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/fair: Clean up " tip-bot for Valentin Schneider
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Valentin Schneider @ 2018-09-26 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: mingo, peterz, vincent.guittot, Dietmar.Eggemann, patrick.bellasi
When load_balance() fails to move some load because of task affinity,
we end up increasing sd->balance_interval to delay the next periodic
balance in the hopes that next time we look, that annoying pinned
task(s) will be gone.
However, idle_balance() pays no attention to sd->balance_interval, yet
it will still lead to an increase in balance_interval in case of
pinned tasks.
If we're going through several newidle balances (e.g. we have a
periodic task), this can lead to a huge increase of the
balance_interval in a very small amount of time.
To prevent that, don't increase the balance interval when going
through a newidle balance.
This is a similar approach to what is done in commit 58b26c4c0257
("sched: Increment cache_nice_tries only on periodic lb"), where we
disregard newidle balance and rely on periodic balance for more stable
results.
Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 13 +++++++++++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 9cf93ba..4c33283 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -8782,13 +8782,22 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
sd->nr_balance_failed = 0;
out_one_pinned:
+ ld_moved = 0;
+
+ /*
+ * idle_balance() disregards balance intervals, so we could repeatedly
+ * reach this code, which would lead to balance_interval skyrocketting
+ * in a short amount of time. Skip the balance_interval increase logic
+ * to avoid that.
+ */
+ if (env.idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
+ goto out;
+
/* tune up the balancing interval */
if ((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED &&
sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval)
sd->balance_interval *= 2;
-
- ld_moved = 0;
out:
return ld_moved;
}
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [tip:sched/core] sched/fair: Don't increase sd->balance_interval on newidle balance
2018-09-26 15:12 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] sched/fair: Don't increase sd->balance_interval on newidle balance Valentin Schneider
@ 2018-11-04 0:13 ` tip-bot for Valentin Schneider
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: tip-bot for Valentin Schneider @ 2018-11-04 0:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-tip-commits
Cc: torvalds, mingo, peterz, linux-kernel, tglx, hpa, valentin.schneider
Commit-ID: 3f130a37c442d5c4d66531b240ebe9abfef426b5
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/3f130a37c442d5c4d66531b240ebe9abfef426b5
Author: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
AuthorDate: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:12:07 +0100
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CommitDate: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 00:59:23 +0100
sched/fair: Don't increase sd->balance_interval on newidle balance
When load_balance() fails to move some load because of task affinity,
we end up increasing sd->balance_interval to delay the next periodic
balance in the hopes that next time we look, that annoying pinned
task(s) will be gone.
However, idle_balance() pays no attention to sd->balance_interval, yet
it will still lead to an increase in balance_interval in case of
pinned tasks.
If we're going through several newidle balances (e.g. we have a
periodic task), this can lead to a huge increase of the
balance_interval in a very small amount of time.
To prevent that, don't increase the balance interval when going
through a newidle balance.
This is a similar approach to what is done in commit 58b26c4c0257
("sched: Increment cache_nice_tries only on periodic lb"), where we
disregard newidle balance and rely on periodic balance for more stable
results.
Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com
Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1537974727-30788-2-git-send-email-valentin.schneider@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 13 +++++++++++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 4e298931a715..a17ca4254427 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -8876,13 +8876,22 @@ out_all_pinned:
sd->nr_balance_failed = 0;
out_one_pinned:
+ ld_moved = 0;
+
+ /*
+ * idle_balance() disregards balance intervals, so we could repeatedly
+ * reach this code, which would lead to balance_interval skyrocketting
+ * in a short amount of time. Skip the balance_interval increase logic
+ * to avoid that.
+ */
+ if (env.idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
+ goto out;
+
/* tune up the balancing interval */
if ((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED &&
sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval)
sd->balance_interval *= 2;
-
- ld_moved = 0;
out:
return ld_moved;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Cleanup load_balance() condition
2018-09-26 15:12 [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Cleanup load_balance() condition Valentin Schneider
2018-09-26 15:12 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] sched/fair: Don't increase sd->balance_interval on newidle balance Valentin Schneider
@ 2018-10-30 10:27 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-10-30 12:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-04 0:13 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/fair: Clean up " tip-bot for Valentin Schneider
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Valentin Schneider @ 2018-10-30 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: mingo, peterz, vincent.guittot, Dietmar.Eggemann, patrick.bellasi
Hi,
On 26/09/2018 16:12, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> The alignment of the condition is off, clean that up.
>
> Also, logical operators have lower precedence than bitwise/relational
> operators, so remove one layer of parentheses to make the condition a
> bit simpler to follow.
>
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 6bd142d..9cf93ba 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -8783,9 +8783,9 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
>
> out_one_pinned:
> /* tune up the balancing interval */
> - if (((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED) &&
> - sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
> - (sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval))
> + if ((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED &&
> + sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
> + sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval)
> sd->balance_interval *= 2;
>
> ld_moved = 0;
>
Is there anything else that should be done for these two patches?
Thanks,
Valentin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Cleanup load_balance() condition
2018-10-30 10:27 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Cleanup load_balance() condition Valentin Schneider
@ 2018-10-30 12:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2018-10-30 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Valentin Schneider
Cc: linux-kernel, mingo, vincent.guittot, Dietmar.Eggemann, patrick.bellasi
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:27:59AM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26/09/2018 16:12, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > The alignment of the condition is off, clean that up.
> >
> > Also, logical operators have lower precedence than bitwise/relational
> > operators, so remove one layer of parentheses to make the condition a
> > bit simpler to follow.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 6bd142d..9cf93ba 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -8783,9 +8783,9 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
> >
> > out_one_pinned:
> > /* tune up the balancing interval */
> > - if (((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED) &&
> > - sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
> > - (sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval))
> > + if ((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED &&
> > + sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
> > + sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval)
> > sd->balance_interval *= 2;
> >
> > ld_moved = 0;
> >
>
> Is there anything else that should be done for these two patches?
Have them now, Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [tip:sched/core] sched/fair: Clean up load_balance() condition
2018-09-26 15:12 [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Cleanup load_balance() condition Valentin Schneider
2018-09-26 15:12 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] sched/fair: Don't increase sd->balance_interval on newidle balance Valentin Schneider
2018-10-30 10:27 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Cleanup load_balance() condition Valentin Schneider
@ 2018-11-04 0:13 ` tip-bot for Valentin Schneider
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: tip-bot for Valentin Schneider @ 2018-11-04 0:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-tip-commits
Cc: linux-kernel, torvalds, peterz, tglx, hpa, valentin.schneider, mingo
Commit-ID: 47b7aee14fd7e453370a5d15dfb11c958ca360f2
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/47b7aee14fd7e453370a5d15dfb11c958ca360f2
Author: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
AuthorDate: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:12:06 +0100
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CommitDate: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 00:59:22 +0100
sched/fair: Clean up load_balance() condition
The alignment of the condition is off, clean that up.
Also, logical operators have lower precedence than bitwise/relational
operators, so remove one layer of parentheses to make the condition a
bit simpler to follow.
Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com
Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1537974727-30788-1-git-send-email-valentin.schneider@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index ee271bb661cc..4e298931a715 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -8877,9 +8877,9 @@ out_all_pinned:
out_one_pinned:
/* tune up the balancing interval */
- if (((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED) &&
- sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
- (sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval))
+ if ((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED &&
+ sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
+ sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval)
sd->balance_interval *= 2;
ld_moved = 0;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread