[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091123112228.GA2287@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:22:28 +0100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: newidle balancing in NUMA domain?
Hi,
I wonder why it was decided to do newidle balancing in the NUMA
domain? And with newidle_idx == 0 at that.
This means that every time the CPU goes idle, every CPU in the
system gets a remote cacheline or two hit. Not very nice O(n^2)
behaviour on the interconnect. Not to mention trashing our
NUMA locality.
And then I see some proposal to do ratelimiting of newidle
balancing :( Seems like hack upon hack making behaviour much more
complex.
One "symptom" of bad mutex contention can be that increasing the
balancing rate can help a bit to reduce idle time (because it
can get the woken thread which is holding a semaphore to run ASAP
after we run out of runnable tasks in the system due to them
hitting contention on that semaphore).
I really hope this change wasn't done in order to help -rt or
something sad like sysbench on MySQL.
And btw, I'll stay out of mentioning anything about CFS development,
but it really sucks to be continually making significant changes to
domains balancing *and* per-runqueue scheduling at the same time :(
It makes it even difficult to bisect things.
Thanks,
Nick
--
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