[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130506101936.GE13861@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 12:19:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load and
cpu_avg_load_per_task
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 01:46:19AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> wrote:
> > @@ -2536,7 +2536,7 @@ static void __update_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
> > void update_idle_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq)
> > {
> > unsigned long curr_jiffies = ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies);
> > - unsigned long load = this_rq->load.weight;
> > + unsigned long load = (unsigned long)this_rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg;
>
> We should be minimizing:
> Variance[ for all i ]{ cfs_rq[i]->runnable_load_avg +
> cfs_rq[i]->blocked_load_avg }
>
> blocked_load_avg is the expected "to wake" contribution from tasks
> already assigned to this rq.
>
> e.g. this could be:
> load = this_rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg + this_rq->cfs.blocked_load_avg;
>
> Although, in general I have a major concern with the current implementation:
>
> The entire reason for stability with the bottom up averages is that
> when load migrates between cpus we are able to migrate it between the
> tracked sums.
>
> Stuffing observed averages of these into the load_idxs loses that
> mobility; we will have to stall (as we do today for idx > 0) before we
> can recognize that a cpu's load has truly left it; this is a very
> similar problem to the need to stably track this for group shares
> computation.
Ah indeed. I overlooked that.
> To that end, I would rather see the load_idx disappear completely:
> (a) We can calculate the imbalance purely from delta (runnable_avg +
> blocked_avg)
> (b) It eliminates a bad tunable.
So I suspect (haven't gone back in history to verify) that load_idx mostly
comes from the fact that our balance passes happen more and more slowly the
bigger the domains get.
In that respect it makes sense to equate load_idx to sched_domain::level;
higher domains balance slower and would thus want a longer-term average to base
decisions on.
So what we would want is means to get sane longer term averages.
--
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