[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b040c32a0811180927r77e0a112s97a01d20d3cbe3d5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:27:14 -0800
From: Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: busted CFS group load balancer?
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>> I'm also very troubled with this calculation in __update_group_shares_cpu():
>>
>> shares = (sd_shares * rq_weight) / (sd_rq_weight + 1);
>>
>> Won't you have rounding problem here? value 'shares' will gradually
>> decrease for each iteration of __update_group_shares_cpu()?
>
> Yes it will, however at the top of the sched-domain tree its reset.
>
> if (!sd->parent || !(sd->parent->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
> shares = tg->shares;
Hmm? it is only true mostly on flat smp machine, or on numa system
where task is woken up across a sched-domain.
There is this code in try_to_wake_up():
for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd) {
if (cpu_isset(cpu, sd->span)) {
update_shares(sd);
break;
}
}
It doesn't iterate to the top half of the time on numa machine.
- Ken
--
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