[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <720fd26424927dd27fea4e5719dafe8a0afaa8c4.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 13:53:32 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Improve newidle lb cost tracking and early abort
On Wed, 2021-10-27 at 10:49 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> > Looking at the profile on update_blocked_averages a bit more,
> > the majority of the call to update_blocked_averages
> > happens in run_rebalance_domain. And we are not
> > including that cost of update_blocked_averages for
> > run_rebalance_domains in our current patch set. I think
> > the patch set should account for that too.
>
> nohz_newidle_balance keeps using sysctl_sched_migration_cost to
> trigger a _nohz_idle_balance(cpu_rq(cpu), NOHZ_STATS_KICK, CPU_IDLE);
> This would probably benefit to take into account the cost of
> update_blocked_averages instead
>
For the case where
this_rq->avg_idle < sysctl_sched_migration_cost
in newidle_balance(), we skip to the out: label
out:
/* Move the next balance forward */
if (time_after(this_rq->next_balance, next_balance))
this_rq->next_balance = next_balance;
if (pulled_task)
this_rq->idle_stamp = 0;
else
nohz_newidle_balance(this_rq);
and we call nohz_newidle_balance as we don't have a pulled_task.
It seems to make sense to skip the call
to nohz_newidle_balance() for this case?
We expect a very short idle and a task to wake shortly.
So we do not have to pull a task
to this idle cpu and incur the migration cost.
Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists