[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f2b3592-9cf8-95ad-7150-6fb430906231@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 15:45:13 +0800
From: cruzzhao <cruzzhao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched/core: Introduce nr_running percpu for each
cookie
在 2022/7/4 下午5:45, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:57:24PM +0800, Cruz Zhao wrote:
>
>> static unsigned long sched_core_alloc_cookie(void)
>> {
>> struct sched_core_cookie *ck = kmalloc(sizeof(*ck), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + int cpu;
>> +
>> if (!ck)
>> return 0;
>>
>> refcount_set(&ck->refcnt, 1);
>> +
>> + ck->nr_running = alloc_percpu(unsigned int);
>
> if (!ck->nr_running)
> // do something
>
>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
>> + *per_cpu_ptr(ck->nr_running, cpu) = 0;
>
> So I really, as in *really* dislike how this blows up the size of
> cookies. Esp. with 100s of CPUs not actually being rare these days.
My idea is to get the distribution of cookie'd tasks on each runqueue
through ck->nr_running, so as to facilitate optimization of load
balance. Sorry for not stating this in the change log.
This does blow up the size of cookies in scenarios with a large number
of CPUs, and I'll try to get around this problem.
Many thanks for reviewing.
Best wishes,
Cruz Zhao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists