[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100519091933.GA30741@isilmar-3.linta.de>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:19:33 +0200
From: Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
ego@...ibm.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] sched: change nohz idle load balancing logic to
push model
Hey,
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:27:26AM -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> This is an updated version of patchset which is posted earlier at
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/10/470
>
> Description:
> Existing nohz idle load balance logic uses the pull model, with one
> idle load balancer CPU nominated on any partially idle system and that
> balancer CPU not going into nohz mode. With the periodic tick, the
> balancer does the idle balancing on behalf of all the CPUs in nohz mode.
>
> This is not very optimal and has few issues:
> * the balancer will continue to have periodic ticks and wakeup
> frequently (HZ rate), even though it may not have any rebalancing to do on
> behalf of any of the idle CPUs.
> * On x86 and CPUs that have APIC timer stoppage on idle CPUs, this periodic
> wakeup can result in an additional interrupt on a CPU doing the timer
> broadcast.
>
> The alternative is to have a push model, where all idle CPUs can enter nohz
> mode and any busy CPU kicks one of the idle CPUs to take care of idle
> balancing on behalf of a group of idle CPUs.
>
> Following patches switches idle load balancer to this push approach.
>
> Updates from the previous version:
>
> * Busy CPU uses send_remote_softirq() for invoking SCHED_SOFTIRQ on the
> idle load balancing cpu, which does the load balancing on behalf of
> all the idle CPUs.
>
> * Dropped the per NUMA node nohz load balancing as it doesn't detect
> certain imbalance scenarios. This will be addressed later.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
This patchset works good on my notebook; the number of wakeups decreases
from ~2.5 to ~1.6 when booting with init=/bin/bash, disabling cursor
blinking and enabling USB autosuspend.
Thanks and best,
Dominik
--
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