[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1427432841.2788.10.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:07:21 -0700
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sched: Improve load balancing in the presence of
idle CPUs
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 10:12 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 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?
Hi Wanpeng,
In nohz_idle_balance(), there is a check for need_resched() so if the
cpu has something to run, it should exit nohz_idle_balance(), which may
cause it to not do the idle balancing on the other CPUs.
--
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