[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070731150234.GA11956@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:02:34 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>,
Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>,
Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@...il.com>, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, chrisw@...s-sol.org, clameter@....com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 14/26] sched: fix next_interval determination in idle_balance()
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:32:54PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
Hello, Greg,
No objections here -- on the contrary, very nice not to have to manually
"taskset" my rcutorture runs. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> ------------------
>
> From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
>
> Fix massive SMP imbalance on NUMA nodes observed on 2.6.21.5 with CFS.
> (and later on reproduced without CFS as well).
>
> The intervals of domains that do not have SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE must be
> considered for the calculation of the time of the next balance.
> Otherwise we may defer rebalancing forever and nodes might stay idle for
> very long times.
>
> Siddha also spotted that the conversion of the balance interval to
> jiffies is missing. Fix that to.
>
> From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> also continue the loop if !(sd->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE).
>
> Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> It did in fact trigger under all three of mainline, CFS, and -rt
> including CFS -- see below for a couple of emails from last Friday
> giving results for these three on the AMD box (where it happened) and on
> a single-quad NUMA-Q system (where it did not, at least not with such
> severity).
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-2.6.21.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6.21.6/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -2831,17 +2831,21 @@ static void idle_balance(int this_cpu, s
> unsigned long next_balance = jiffies + 60 * HZ;
>
> for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd) {
> - if (sd->flags & SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE) {
> + unsigned long interval;
> +
> + if (!(sd->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (sd->flags & SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE)
> /* If we've pulled tasks over stop searching: */
> pulled_task = load_balance_newidle(this_cpu,
> - this_rq, sd);
> - if (time_after(next_balance,
> - sd->last_balance + sd->balance_interval))
> - next_balance = sd->last_balance
> - + sd->balance_interval;
> - if (pulled_task)
> - break;
> - }
> + this_rq, sd);
> +
> + interval = msecs_to_jiffies(sd->balance_interval);
> + if (time_after(next_balance, sd->last_balance + interval))
> + next_balance = sd->last_balance + interval;
> + if (pulled_task)
> + break;
> }
> if (!pulled_task)
> /*
>
> --
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists