[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1DD7BFEDD3147247B1355BEFEFE466523791832BE7@HQMAIL04.nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:15:19 -0800
From: Diwakar Tundlam <dtundlam@...dia.com>
To: 'Mike Galbraith' <efault@....de>
CC: 'Ingo Molnar' <mingo@...e.hu>,
'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@...radead.org>,
"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
Antti Miettinen <amiettinen@...dia.com>
Subject: RE: Fix bug: Scheduler's idle-load-balancer not running in first 5
mins after bootup
>> Shouldn't that really be INITIAL_JIFFIES + HZ?
That may work as well. I was modeling the change after similar initialization of the 'next_balance' field in each rq which is done a few lines earlier. And nohz.next_balance follows rq->next_balance.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Galbraith [mailto:efault@....de]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 7:49 PM
To: Diwakar Tundlam
Cc: 'Ingo Molnar'; 'Peter Zijlstra'; 'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'; Peter De Schrijver; Antti Miettinen; Matthew Longnecker; Kevin Kranzusch
Subject: Re: Fix bug: Scheduler's idle-load-balancer not running in first 5 mins after bootup
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 10:14 -0800, Diwakar Tundlam wrote:
> We ran into this at Nvidia. QA filed a bug saying coremark_4pthreads scores lower (as if running on 3 cores) when run shortly after bootup. But later its score increases to expected values on 4 cores.
>
> This patch is relevant to linux-2.6.39 but I noticed this fix is not made in linux-3.0, 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3 also.
>
> Please see commit log for more details of the problem and fix.
>
> Thanks,
> Diwakar.
> Tegra Android Kernel SW Engg.
> NVIDIA.
> Santa Clara, CA
>
> commit d04d7ef0e3f8c70bd6cd5abb2abc0236aa8d1f7c
> Author: Diwakar Tundlam <dtundlam@...dia.com>
> Date: Wed Jan 18 18:58:57 2012 -0800
>
> scheduler: domain: init next_balance in nohz_idle_balancer with jiffies
>
> The next_balance parameter of nohz_idle_balancer should be initialized
> to jiffies since jiffies itself is initialized to 300 seconds shy of
> overflow. Otherwise, nohz_idle_balancer does not run for the first 5
> mins after bootup.
>
> Signed-off-by: Diwakar Tundlam <dtundlam@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Aleksandr Frid <afrid@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Peter Boonstoppel <pboonstoppel@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Satya Popuri <spopuri@...dia.com>
>
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c index c5b09f7..506c5da 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -8288,6 +8288,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
> atomic_set(&nohz.load_balancer, nr_cpu_ids);
> atomic_set(&nohz.first_pick_cpu, nr_cpu_ids);
> atomic_set(&nohz.second_pick_cpu, nr_cpu_ids);
> + nohz.next_balance = jiffies;
> #endif
> /* May be allocated at isolcpus cmdline parse time */
> if (cpu_isolated_map == NULL)
Shouldn't that really be INITIAL_JIFFIES + HZ?
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists