[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1398393955.5273.4.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:45:55 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
alex.shi@...aro.org, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, morten.rasmussen@....com, aswin@...com,
chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched, fair: Stop searching for tasks in newidle
balance if there are runnable tasks
On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 18:52 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:43:09AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > If the below patch is what you were referring to, I believe this
> > can help too. This was also something that I was testing out before
> > we went with those patches which compares avg_idle with idle balance
> > cost. I recall seeing somewhere around a +7% performance improvement
> > in at least least 1 of the AIM7 workloads. I can do some more testing
> > with this.
>
> Yes, exactly that.
>
> I can't remember the details, but I suspect we feared the less agressive
> idle balance due to that patch (it will only pull a single task, instead
> of multiple) would cause more idle_balance invocations and thereby
> decrease throughput.
>
> So I suppose something with _many_ bursty threads which leads to severe
> inequalities would be the workload to trigger that.
>
> Not sure we've ever seen that.. maybe Mike remembers, he seems to have a
> head for such details.
I don't recall ever seeing such.
-Mike
--
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