From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: fix unnecessary increase of balance interval
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 18:41:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBJ+V=U-xHdcviXt5ezxJAYUiXPrU=ma89=Z58tATt5qw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55dcf87d-21fd-65d6-ff5c-bbcb0f6a6d29@arm.com>
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 18:15, Valentin Schneider
<valentin.schneider@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 21/12/2018 14:49, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> [...]
> > After looking at shed.c at this sha1, (sd->nr_balance_failed >
> > sd->cache_nice_tries+2) was the only condition for doing active
> > migration and as a result it was the only reason for doubling
> > sd->balance_interval.
> > My patch keeps exactly the same behavior for this condition
> > 'sd->nr_balance_failed > sd->cache_nice_tries+2). And, I'm even more
> > convinced to exclude (sd->nr_balance_failed > sd->cache_nice_tries+2)
> > condition because it's the condition that has introduced the doubling
> > of the interval.
> >
> > As said previously, you can argue that this behavior is not optimal
> > and discuss its validity, but the sha1 that you mentioned above,
> > introduced the current policy for (sd->nr_balance_failed >
> > sd->cache_nice_tries+2) condition.
> > Reverting such behavior would need more studies, tests and cares
>
> I agree with you on that, those are valid concerns.
>
> What I'm arguing for is instead of doing this in two steps (reset interval
> only for some active balance types, then experiment only increasing it for
> "active balance as a last resort"), I'd prefer doing it in one step.
Doing in 2 steps has the advantage of not delaying the current fix and
gives enough time for a complete study on the other step
>
> Mostly because I think the intermediate step adds an active balance
> categorization that can easily become confusing. Furthermore, that 2005
> commit explicitly states it wants to cater to pinned tasks, but we didn't
> have those LBF_* flags back then, so if we are to do something about it
> we should be improving upon the original intent.
>
> In the end it's not for me to decide, I just happen to find doing it that
> way more elegant (from a functionality & code readability PoV).
>
> > which
> > are out of the scope of this patchset and more related to a whole
> > refactoring of load_balance and calculte_imbalance; FYI, I have
> > submitted a topic on the subject for the next OSPM
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-21 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-20 7:55 [PATCH v3 0/3] sched/fair: some fixes for asym_packing Vincent Guittot
2018-12-20 7:55 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] sched/fair: fix rounding issue for asym packing Vincent Guittot
2018-12-20 11:16 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-12-20 14:22 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-12-20 14:54 ` [PATCH v4 " Vincent Guittot
2018-12-20 7:55 ` [PATCH 2/3] sched/fair: trigger asym_packing during idle load balance Vincent Guittot
2018-12-20 11:19 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-12-20 14:33 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-12-20 16:12 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-12-20 7:55 ` [PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: fix unnecessary increase of balance interval Vincent Guittot
2018-12-20 11:22 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-12-20 14:50 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-12-20 17:24 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-12-21 14:49 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-12-21 17:15 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-12-21 17:41 ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-08-07 15:56 [PATCH 0/3] sched/fair: some fixes for asym_packing Vincent Guittot
2018-08-07 15:56 ` [PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: fix unnecessary increase of balance interval Vincent Guittot
2018-12-13 13:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-13 15:36 ` Vincent Guittot
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='CAKfTPtBJ+V=U-xHdcviXt5ezxJAYUiXPrU=ma89=Z58tATt5qw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.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).