From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754540Ab3AWJ0r (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:26:47 -0500 Received: from e23smtp05.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.147]:33356 "EHLO e23smtp05.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754123Ab3AWJ0q (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:26:46 -0500 Message-ID: <50FFACC5.7060405@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:26:29 +0800 From: Michael Wang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Galbraith CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair() References: <1356588535-23251-1-git-send-email-wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50FCCCF5.30504@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1358750523.4994.55.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1358752180.4994.65.camel@marge.simpson.net> <50FCF212.3010504@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1358759355.4994.108.camel@marge.simpson.net> <50FD08E1.8000302@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1358761496.4994.118.camel@marge.simpson.net> <50FE0ADC.6060701@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1358841795.5782.255.camel@marge.simpson.net> <50FE5433.1070801@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1358865692.5782.420.camel@marge.simpson.net> <50FF4EA0.1070000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1358915494.5752.46.camel@marge.simpson.net> <50FF7086.4020509@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1358922520.5752.91.camel@marge.simpson.net> <50FF8CD8.4060105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1358929257.5752.109.camel@marge.simp! son.net> <50FF9F92.60202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1358930968.5752.123.camel@marge.simpson.net> <50FFA695.6010407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1358932694.5752.126.camel@marge.simpson.net> In-Reply-To: <1358932694.5752.126.camel@marge.simpson.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13012309-1396-0000-0000-000002744F2D Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/23/2013 05:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:00 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: >> On 01/23/2013 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: >>> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: >>>> On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: >>>>>> On 01/23/2013 02:28 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Abbreviated test run: >>>>>>> Tasks jobs/min jti jobs/min/task real cpu >>>>>>> 640 158044.01 81 246.9438 24.54 577.66 Wed Jan 23 07:14:33 2013 >>>>>>> 1280 50434.33 39 39.4018 153.80 5737.57 Wed Jan 23 07:17:07 2013 >>>>>>> 2560 47214.07 34 18.4430 328.58 12715.56 Wed Jan 23 07:22:36 2013 >>>>>> >>>>>> So still not works... and not going to balance path while waking up will >>>>>> fix it, looks like that's the only choice if no error on balance path >>>>>> could be found...benchmark wins again, I'm feeling bad... >>>>>> >>>>>> I will conclude the info we collected and make a v3 later. >>>>> >>>>> FWIW, I hacked virgin to do full balance if an idle CPU was not found, >>>>> leaving the preference to wake cache affine intact though, turned on >>>>> WAKE_BALANCE in all domains, and it did not collapse. In fact, the high >>>>> load end, where the idle search will frequently be a waste of cycles, >>>>> actually improved a bit. Things that make ya go hmmm. >>>> >>>> Oh, does that means the old balance path is good while the new is really >>>> broken, I mean, compared this with the previously results, could we say >>>> that all the collapse was just caused by the change of balance path? >>> >>> That's a good supposition. I'll see if it holds. >> >> I just notice that there is no sd support the WAKE flag at all according >> to your debug info, isn't it? > > There is, I turned it on in all domains. So is the debug info show the changes? May be I missed some timing which need to rebuild the sbm. Regards, Michael Wang > > -Mike >