[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDDMT84k+gJ2qmw9ApVmiJAgP_E5xGu0qTwj84p7XJQjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 21:13:59 +0200
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] sched: replace capacity by activity
On 30 May 2014 08:34, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:56:24PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 29 May 2014 16:02, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 05:53:05PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >> @@ -6052,8 +6006,8 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd
>> >> * with a large weight task outweighs the tasks on the system).
>> >> */
>> >> if (prefer_sibling && sds->local &&
>> >> - sds->local_stat.group_has_capacity)
>> >> - sgs->group_capacity = min(sgs->group_capacity, 1U);
>> >> + sds->local_stat.group_capacity > 0)
>> >> + sgs->group_capacity = min(sgs->group_capacity, 1L);
>> >>
>> >> if (update_sd_pick_busiest(env, sds, sg, sgs)) {
>> >> sds->busiest = sg;
>> >> @@ -6228,7 +6182,7 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s
>> >> * have to drop below capacity to reach cpu-load equilibrium.
>> >> */
>> >> load_above_capacity =
>> >> - (busiest->sum_nr_running - busiest->group_capacity);
>> >> + (busiest->sum_nr_running - busiest->group_weight);
>> >>
>> >> load_above_capacity *= (SCHED_LOAD_SCALE * SCHED_POWER_SCALE);
>> >> load_above_capacity /= busiest->group_power;
>> >
>> > I think you just broke PREFER_SIBLING here..
>>
>> you mean by replacing the capacity which was reflecting the number of
>> core for SMT by the group_weight ?
>
> Right to in the first hunk we lower group_capacity to 1 when prefer_sibling,
> then in the second hunk, you replace that group_capacity usage with
> group_weight.
>
> With the end result that prefer_sibling is now ineffective.
ok
>
> That said, I fudged the prefer_sibling usage into the capacity logic,
> mostly because I could and it was already how the SMT stuff was working.
> But there is no reason we should continue to intertwine these two
> things.
>
> So I think it would be good to have a patch that implements
> prefer_sibling on nr_running separate from the existing capacity bits,
> and then convert the remaining capacity bits to utilization (or activity
> or whatever you did call it, see Morton's comments etc.).
ok, i'm going to prepare such change
>
>
--
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