[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8f6b4ab17a319117cbed8751aa4fa9f2d6e0ca5b.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 14:36:08 -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 Thu, 2021-10-28 at 14:15 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> > It seems to make sense to skip the call
> > to nohz_newidle_balance() for this case?
>
> nohz_newidle_balance() also tests this condition :
> (this_rq->avg_idle < sysctl_sched_migration_cost)
> and doesn't set NOHZ_NEWILB_KICKi in such case
>
> But this patch now used the condition :
> this_rq->avg_idle < sd->max_newidle_lb_cost
> and sd->max_newidle_lb_cost can be higher than
> sysctl_sched_migration_cost
>
> which means that we can set NOHZ_NEWILB_KICK:
> -although we decided to skip newidle loop
> -or when we abort because this_rq->avg_idle < curr_cost + sd-
> >max_newidle_lb_cost
>
> This is even more true when sysctl_sched_migration_cost is lowered
> which is your case IIRC
>
> The patch below ensures that we don't set NOHZ_NEWILB_KICK in such
> cases:
>
Thanks. Will ask our benchmark team to give it a spin.
Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists