linux-kernel - Re: [patch v5 14/15] sched: power aware load balance

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <515599AD.5090901@intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:39:57 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, efault@....de,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de,
	pjt@...gle.com, namhyung@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [patch v5 14/15] sched: power aware load balance

On 03/29/2013 08:42 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> > did you try the simplest benchmark: while true; do :; done
> Yeah I tried out this while true; do :; done benchmark on a vm which ran

Thanks a lot for trying!

What's do you mean 'vm'? Virtual machine?

> on 2 socket, 2 cores each socket and 2 threads each core emulation.
> I ran two instances of this loop with balance policy on, and it was
> found that there was one instance running on each socket, rather than
> both instances getting consolidated on one socket.
> 
> But when I apply the change where we do not consider rq->util if it has
> no nr_running on the rq,the two instances of the above benchmark get
> consolidated onto one socket.
> 
> 

I don't know much of virtual machine, guess the unstable VCPU to CPU pin
cause rq->util keep large? Did you try to pin VCPU to physical CPU?

I still give the rq->util weight even the nr_running is 0, because some
transitory tasks may actived on the cpu, but just missed on balancing point.

I just wondering that forgetting rq->util when nr_running = 0 is the
real root cause if your finding is just on VM and without fixed VCPU to
CPU pin.


-- 
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/