linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Aggressive balance in domains whose groups share package resources
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:53:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131028155316.GQ19466@laptop.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131021114502.13291.60794.stgit@drishya>

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 05:15:02PM +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> The current logic in load balance is such that after picking the
> busiest group, the load is attempted to be moved from the busiest cpu
> in that group to the dst_cpu. If the load cannot be moved from the
> busiest cpu to dst_cpu due to either tsk_cpus_allowed mask or cache
> hot tasks, then the dst_cpu is changed to be another idle cpu within
> the dst->grpmask. If even then, the load cannot be moved from the
> busiest cpu, then the source group is changed. The next busiest group
> is found and the above steps are repeated.
> 
> However if the cpus in the group share package resources, then when
> a load movement from the busiest cpu in this group fails as above,
> instead of finding the next busiest group to move load from, find the
> next busiest cpu *within the same group* from which to move load away.
> By doing so, a conscious effort is made during load balancing to keep
> just one cpu busy as much as possible within domains that have
> SHARED_PKG_RESOURCES flag set unless under scenarios of high load.
> Having multiple cpus busy within a domain which share package resource
> could lead to a performance hit.
> 
> A similar scenario arises in active load balancing as well. When the
> current task on the busiest cpu cannot be moved away due to task
> pinning, currently no more attempts at load balancing is made.

> This
> patch checks if the balancing is being done on a group whose cpus
> share package resources. If so, then check if the load balancing can
> be done for other cpus in the same group.

So I absolutely hate this patch... Also I'm not convinced I actually
understand the explanation above.

Furthermore; there is nothing special about spreading tasks for
SHARED_PKG_RESOURCES and special casing that one case is just wrong.

If anything it should be keyed off of SD_PREFER_SIBLING and or
cpu_power.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-10-28 15:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-21 11:44 [PATCH 0/3] sched: Fixes for task placement in SMT threads Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2013-10-21 11:44 ` [PATCH 1/3] sched: Fix nohz_kick_needed to consider the nr_busy of the parent domain's group Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2013-10-22 14:35   ` Kamalesh Babulal
2013-10-22 16:40     ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-10-22 22:11   ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-23  4:00     ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-10-23  4:21       ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-10-23  9:50     ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-10-23 15:28       ` Vincent Guittot
2013-10-24  8:07         ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-10-28 13:50           ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-29  3:30             ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-10-29 13:26               ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-21 11:44 ` [PATCH 2/3] sched: Fix asymmetric scheduling for POWER7 Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2013-10-21 22:55   ` Michael Neuling
2013-10-22 22:18   ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-21 11:45 ` [PATCH 3/3] sched: Aggressive balance in domains whose groups share package resources Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2013-10-22 22:23   ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-24  4:04     ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-10-25 13:19     ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-10-28 15:53   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2013-10-29  5:35     ` Preeti U Murthy

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=20131028155316.GQ19466@laptop.lan \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=bitbucket@online.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mikey@neuling.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).