[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080225143518.GA29275@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:05:18 +0530
From: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: revert load_balance_monitor()
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 03:29:59PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 13:22 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Subject: sched: revert load_balance_monitor()
> >
> > The following commit causes a number of serious regressions:
> >
> > commit 6b2d7700266b9402e12824e11e0099ae6a4a6a79
> > Author: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date: Fri Jan 25 21:08:00 2008 +0100
> > sched: group scheduler, fix fairness of cpu bandwidth allocation for task groups
> >
> > Namely:
> > - very frequent wakeups on SMP, reported by PowerTop users.
> > - cacheline trashing on (large) SMP
> > - some latencies larger than 500ms
> >
> > While there is a mergeable patch to fix the latter, the former issues
> > are IMHO not fixable in a manner suitable for .25 (we're at -rc3 now).
> > Hence I propose to revert this patch and try again for .26.
> >
> > ( minimal revert - leaves most of the code present, just removes the activation
> > and sysctl interface ).
>
> top - 14:05:56 up 3 min, 16 users, load average: 4.31, 2.14, 0.85
> Tasks: 218 total, 5 running, 213 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> Cpu(s): 35.5%us, 64.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND
> 5294 mikeg 20 0 1464 364 304 R 99 0.0 1:00.08 0 chew-max
> 5278 root 20 0 1464 364 304 R 32 0.0 0:27.86 1 chew-max
> 5279 root 20 0 1464 360 304 R 32 0.0 0:35.53 1 chew-max
> 5290 root 20 0 1464 364 304 R 31 0.0 0:29.00 1 chew-max
>
> The minimal revert seems to leave group fairness in a worse state than
> what the original patch meant to fix. Maybe a full revert would be
> better?
>
This is funny. The thread should not start. Did the full revert that I
sent you sometime back work better?
Thanks,
--
regards,
Dhaval
--
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