linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] accelerate newidle balancing in relax

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:10:40 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] accelerate newidle balancing in relax_domain


* Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com> wrote:

> Increasing the value of 'sched_relax_domain_level' in cpuset expands 
> the searching range of task balancing on some schedule events. As 
> the result it makes the task balancing in the range more aggressive, 
> so it will benefit some situation, such as where the latency is 
> required even it sacrifices cache hit rate etc. (for such situation, 
> it would be ideally best that cpus do not be idle until there are no 
> runnable task.)
> 
> This patch aimed to accelerate the balancing in the relax_domain.
> 
> The newidle balancing is kicked when tasks in a runqueue run out. It 
> finds and pulls runnable tasks from other busy cpus, checking load 
> imbalance between cpus.  Considering above situation, using loads in 
> short term is preferred than that in long term because it makes 
> balancing more aggressive otherwise it becomes relatively 
> conservative. The referenced load is selected by the newidle_idx 
> parameter of scheduler domains, so this patch tunes the parameters 
> only when domains are in the relax_domain's range.  There are no 
> effects if you don't use relax_domain.
> 
> Following is a result of my short-lightweight-transaction test, showing
> average of requester's latency (ms), 300 couple of threads running 30 sec
> on 8cpu/Itanium:
> 
>   1) v2.6.28-rc4
>      Average 0.748783 Std Div 1.688022 Throughput 165313
>   2) v2.6.28-rc4 + relax_domain
>      Average 0.536867 Std Div 1.115383 Throughput 168492
>   3) v2.6.28-rc4 + relax_domain + patch
>      Average 0.385164 Std Div 0.801875 Throughput 170069

that improvement in metric looks good.

> Signed-off-by: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched.c |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 57c933f..c970239 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -7366,6 +7366,8 @@ static void set_domain_attribute(struct sched_domain *sd,
>  	} else {
>  		/* turn on idle balance on this domain */
>  		sd->flags |= (SD_WAKE_IDLE_FAR|SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE);
> +		/* make newidle balancing more aggressive */
> +		sd->newidle_idx = 0;

I agree with making it more sensitive to momentary load fluctuations. 
(as long as other metrics do not degrade).

But this solutin basically overrides the newidle_idx tuning in 
topology.h.

Is there a strong reason to do this tuning dynamically, or could we 
just decrease newidle_idx in the appropriate templates in the 
topology.h files?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/