linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/7] sched: move cfs task on a CPU with higher capacity

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: <CAKfTPtABoQFQfufYK+hTd96ufQT83uypedzuZOeWjnUd51AbaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:59:36 +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>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.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>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/7] sched: move cfs task on a CPU with higher capacity

On 9 October 2014 13:23, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:13:32PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -5896,6 +5896,18 @@ fix_small_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, struct sched_group *group)
>>  }
>>
>>  /*
>> + * Check whether the capacity of the rq has been noticeably reduced by side
>> + * activity. The imbalance_pct is used for the threshold.
>> + * Return true is the capacity is reduced
>> + */
>> +static inline int
>> +check_cpu_capacity(struct rq *rq, struct sched_domain *sd)
>> +{
>> +     return ((rq->cpu_capacity * sd->imbalance_pct) <
>> +                             (rq->cpu_capacity_orig * 100));
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>>   * Group imbalance indicates (and tries to solve) the problem where balancing
>>   * groups is inadequate due to tsk_cpus_allowed() constraints.
>>   *
>> @@ -6567,6 +6579,14 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
>>                */
>>               if ((sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING) && env->src_cpu > env->dst_cpu)
>>                       return 1;
>> +
>> +             /*
>> +              * The src_cpu's capacity is reduced because of other
>> +              * sched_class or IRQs, we trig an active balance to move the
>> +              * task
>> +              */
>> +             if (check_cpu_capacity(env->src_rq, sd))
>> +                     return 1;
>>       }
>
> So does it make sense to first check if there's a better candidate at
> all? By this time we've already iterated the current SD while trying
> regular load balancing, so we could know this.

i'm not sure to completely catch your point.
Normally, f_b_g and f_b_q have already looked at the best candidate
when we call need_active_balance. And src_cpu has been elected.
Or i have missed your point ?


>
>
--
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/