[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150702010539.GB5197@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:05:39 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent@...s.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH?] Livelock in pick_next_task_fair() / idle_balance()
Hi Mike,
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 10:05:47AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 07:25 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
>
> > That being said, it is also obvious to prevent the livelock from happening:
> > idle pulling until the source rq's nr_running is 1, becuase otherwise we
> > just avoid idleness by making another idleness.
>
> Yeah, but that's just the symptom, not the disease. Better for the idle
> balance symptom may actually be to only pull one when idle balancing.
> After all, the immediate goal is to find something better to do than
> idle, not to achieve continual perfect (is the enemy of good) balance.
>
Symptom? :)
You mean "pull one and stop, can't be greedy"? Right, but still need to
assure you don't make another idle CPU (meaning until nr_running == 1), which
is the cure to disease.
I am ok with at most "pull one", but probably we stick to the load_balance()
by pulling an fair amount, assuming load_balance() magically computes the
right imbalance, otherwise you may have to do multiple "pull one"s.
Thanks,
Yuyang
--
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