linux-kernel - Re: [Resend patch v8 0/13] use runnable load in schedule balance

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:	Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:15:04 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org
CC:	tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de, pjt@...gle.com,
	namhyung@...nel.org, efault@....de, morten.rasmussen@....com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, len.brown@...el.com,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, jkosina@...e.cz,
	clark.williams@...il.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
	keescook@...omium.org, mgorman@...e.de, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [Resend patch v8 0/13] use runnable load in schedule balance

On 06/20/2013 10:18 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> Resend patchset for more convenient pick up.
> This patch set combine 'use runnable load in balance' serials and 'change 
> 64bit variables to long type' serials. also collected Reviewed-bys, and 
> Tested-bys.
> 
> The only changed code is fixing load to load_avg convert in UP mode, which
> found by PeterZ in task_h_load().
> 
> Paul still has some concern of blocked_load_avg out of balance consideration.
> but I didn't see the blocked_load_avg usage was thought through now, or some 
> strong reason to make it into balance.
> So, according to benchmarks testing result I keep patches unchanged.

Ingo & Peter,

This patchset was discussed spread and deeply.

Now just 6th/8th patch has some arguments on them, Paul think it is
better to consider blocked_load_avg in balance, since it is helpful on
some scenarios, but I think on most of scenarios, the blocked_load_avg
just cause load imbalance among cpus. and plus testing show with
blocked_load_avg the performance is just worse on some benchmarks. So, I
still prefer to keep it out of balance.

http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg455196.html

Is it the time to do the decision or give more comments? Thanks!
> 
> Regards
> Alex
> 
> [Resend patch v8 01/13] Revert "sched: Introduce temporary
> [Resend patch v8 02/13] sched: move few runnable tg variables into
> [Resend patch v8 03/13] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for
> [Resend patch v8 04/13] sched: fix slept time double counting in
> [Resend patch v8 05/13] sched: update cpu load after task_tick.
> [Resend patch v8 06/13] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load
> [Resend patch v8 07/13] sched: consider runnable load average in
> [Resend patch v8 08/13] sched/tg: remove blocked_load_avg in balance
> [Resend patch v8 09/13] sched: change cfs_rq load avg to unsigned
> [Resend patch v8 10/13] sched/tg: use 'unsigned long' for load
> [Resend patch v8 11/13] sched/cfs_rq: change atomic64_t removed_load
> [Resend patch v8 12/13] sched/tg: remove tg.load_weight
> [Resend patch v8 13/13] sched: get_rq_runnable_load() can be static
> 


-- 
Thanks
    Alex
--
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/