[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1296852688-1665-1-git-send-email-venki@google.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 12:51:28 -0800
From: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH] sched: Resolve sd_idle and first_idle_cpu Catch-22
Consider a system with { [ (A B) (C D) ] [ (E F) (G H) ] },
() denoting SMT siblings, [] cores on same socket and {} system wide
Further, A, C and D are idle, B is busy and one of EFGH has excess load.
With sd_idle logic, a check in rebalance_domains() converts tick
based load balance requests from CPU A to busy load balance for core
and above domains (lower rate of balance and higher load_idx).
With first_idle_cpu logic, when CPU C or D tries to balance across domains
the logic finds CPU A as first idle CPU in the group and nominates CPU A to
idle balance across sockets.
But, sd_idle above would not allow CPU A to do cross socket idle balance
as CPU A switches its higher level balancing to busy balance.
So, this can result is no cross socket balancing for extended periods.
The fix here adds additional check to detect sd_idle logic in
first_idle_cpu code path. We will now nominate (in order or preference):
* First fully idle CPU
* First semi-idle CPU
* First CPU
Note that this solution works fine for 2 SMT siblings case and won't be
perfect in picking proper semi-idle in case of more than 2 SMT threads.
The problem was found by looking at the code and schedstat output. I don't
yet have any data to show impact of this on any workload.
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
---
kernel/sched_fair.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
index 62723a4..1790cc2 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -2603,6 +2603,37 @@ fix_small_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, struct sched_group *group)
return 0;
}
+/*
+ * Find if there is any busy CPUs in SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER domain of
+ * requested CPU.
+ * Bypass the check in case of SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE on
+ * parent domain. In that case requested CPU can still be nominated as
+ * balancer for higher domains.
+ */
+static int is_cpupower_sharing_domain_idle(int cpu)
+{
+ struct sched_domain *sd;
+ int i;
+
+ if (!(sysctl_sched_compat_yield & 0x4))
+ return 1;
+
+ for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
+ if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER))
+ break;
+
+ if (test_sd_parent(sd, SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE))
+ return 1;
+
+ for_each_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(sd)) {
+ if (!idle_cpu(i))
+ return 0;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 1;
+}
+
/**
* update_sg_lb_stats - Update sched_group's statistics for load balancing.
* @sd: The sched_domain whose statistics are to be updated.
@@ -2625,6 +2656,7 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct sched_domain *sd,
unsigned long load, max_cpu_load, min_cpu_load, max_nr_running;
int i;
unsigned int balance_cpu = -1, first_idle_cpu = 0;
+ unsigned int first_semiidle_cpu = 0;
unsigned long avg_load_per_task = 0;
if (local_group)
@@ -2644,8 +2676,13 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct sched_domain *sd,
/* Bias balancing toward cpus of our domain */
if (local_group) {
if (idle_cpu(i) && !first_idle_cpu) {
- first_idle_cpu = 1;
- balance_cpu = i;
+ if (is_cpupower_sharing_domain_idle(i)) {
+ first_idle_cpu = 1;
+ balance_cpu = i;
+ } else if (!first_semiidle_cpu) {
+ first_semiidle_cpu = 1;
+ balance_cpu = i;
+ }
}
load = target_load(i, load_idx);
--
1.7.3.1
--
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