linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Reduce the rate of needless idle load balancing

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: <1400621967.2970.280.camel@schen9-DESK>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2014 14:39:27 -0700
From:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
	Hedi Berriche <hedi@....com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Reduce the rate of needless idle load balancing

On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 14:09 -0700, Jason Low wrote:

> Hi Tim, Rik
> 
> Yes, that makes sense that we want to balance if they are equal. We
> may also consider using "if (time_after_eq(jiffies,
> rq->next_balance)".
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>

Jason & Rik,

Thanks for reviewing the patch.  I've updated the patch below as
suggested.

Tim

---

From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] sched: Reduce the rate of needless idle load balancing


The current no_hz idle load balancer do load balancing for *all* idle cpus,
even though the time due to load balance for a particular
idle cpu could be still a while in the future.  This introduces a much
higher load balancing rate than what is necessary.  The patch
changes the behavior by only doing idle load balancing on
behalf of an idle cpu only when it is due for load balancing.

On SGI's systems with over 3000 cores, the cpu responsible for idle balancing
got overwhelmed with idle balancing, and introduces a lot of OS noise
to workloads.  This patch fixes the issue.

Acked-by: Russ Anderson <rja@....com>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 17 +++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 9b4c4f3..b826c3a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6764,12 +6764,17 @@ static void nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, enum cpu_idle_type idle)
 
 		rq = cpu_rq(balance_cpu);
 
-		raw_spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
-		update_rq_clock(rq);
-		update_idle_cpu_load(rq);
-		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
-
-		rebalance_domains(rq, CPU_IDLE);
+		/*
+		 * If time for next balance is due,
+		 * do the balance.
+		 */
+		if (time_after_eq(jiffies, rq->next_balance)) {
+			raw_spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
+			update_rq_clock(rq);
+			update_idle_cpu_load(rq);
+			raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
+			rebalance_domains(rq, CPU_IDLE);
+		}
 
 		if (time_after(this_rq->next_balance, rq->next_balance))
 			this_rq->next_balance = rq->next_balance;
-- 
1.7.11.7




--
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/