[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGjg+kFZ2+tzxOS4SVo3PTzEDJJ=B0gZJ0aEOhNHvTycFuVT6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:19:37 +0800
From: Alex Shi <lkml.alex@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Subject: weakness of runnable load tracking?
Hi Paul&Ingo:
Runnable load tracking patch set introduce a good way to tracking each
entity/rq's running time.
But when I try to enable it in load balance, I found burst forking
many new tasks will make just few cpu heavy while other cpu has no
much task assigned. That is due to the new forked task's
load_avg_contrib is zero after just created. then no matter how many
tasks assigned to a CPU can not increase the cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg
or rq->avg.load_avg_contrib if this cpu idle.
Actually, if just for new task issue, we can set new task's initial
load_avg same as load_weight. but if we want to burst wake up many
long time sleeping tasks, it has the same issue here since their were
decayed to zero. So what solution I can thought is recording the se's
load_avg_contrib just before dequeue, and don't decay the value, when
it was waken up, add this value to new cfs_rq. but if so, the runnable
load tracking is total meaningless.
So do you have some idea of burst wakeup balancing with runnable load tracking?
--
Thanks
Alex
--
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