[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150327021201.GA4491@kernel>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:12:01 +0800
From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, riel@...hat.com,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pjt@...gle.com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, efault@....de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
morten.rasmussen@....com, jason.low2@...com,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sched: Improve load balancing in the presence of idle
CPUs
Hi Preeti,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 06:32:44PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>
>1. An ILB CPU was chosen from the first numa domain to trigger nohz idle
>load balancing [Given the experiment, upto 6 CPUs per core could be
>potentially idle in this domain.]
>
>2. However the ILB CPU would call load_balance() on itself before
>initiating nohz idle load balancing.
>
>3. Given cores are SMT8, the ILB CPU had enough opportunities to pull
>tasks from its sibling cores to even out load.
>
>4. Now that the ILB CPU was no longer idle, it would abort nohz idle
>load balancing
I don't see abort nohz idle load balancing when ILB CPU was no longer idle
in nohz_idle_balance(), could you explain more in details?
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
--
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