[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201215114506.GB3371@techsingularity.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 11:45:06 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
valentin.schneider@....com, qais.yousef@....com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, benbjiang@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] sched/fair: Fix select_idle_cpu()s cost
accounting
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 08:59:11AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:36:35AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> > On 2020/12/15 0:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > We compute the average cost of the total scan, but then use it as a
> > > per-cpu scan cost when computing the scan proportion. Fix this by
> > > properly computing a per-cpu scan cost.
> > >
> > > This also fixes a bug where we would terminate early (!--nr, case) and
> > > not account that cost at all.
> >
> > I'm a bit worried this may introduce a regression under heavy load.
> > The overhead of adding another cpu_clock() and calculation becomes
> > significant when sis_scan is throttled by nr.
>
> The thing is, the code as it exists today makes no sense what so ever.
Which makes it very hard to reason about or change in a "safe" manner as
all sorts of counter-intuitive effects occur.
The series is queued and running and takes 1-2 days. I haven't reviewed
the patches properly (holiday) but it'll be interesting to get some
provisional data at least.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists