[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110919163528.GC21064@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:05:28 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: CFS Bandwidth Control - Test results of cgroups tasks pinned vs
unpinnede
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> [2011-09-16 10:28:40]:
> > I think more compelling here is that it looks like nohz load-balance
> > needs more love.
>
> Quite probable,
Staring at nohz load-balancer for sometime, I see a potential issue:
'first_pick_cpu' and 'second_pick_cpu' can be idle without stopping
ticks for quite a while. When that happens, they stop bothering to
kick ilb cpu because of this snippet in nohz_kick_needed():
static inline int nohz_kick_needed(struct rq *rq, int cpu)
{
..
if (rq->idle_at_tick)
return 0;
..
}
?
- vatsa
--
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