lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: move enough load to balance average load per task
Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 04:45:32PM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
>> Problem:
>>
>> The current implementation of find_busiest_group() recognizes that
>> approximately equal average loads per task for each group/queue are
>> desirable (e.g. this condition will increase the probability that the
>> top N highest priority tasks on an N CPU system will be on different
>> CPUs) by being slightly more aggressive when *imbalance is small but the
>> average load per task in "busiest" group is more than that in "this"
>> group. Unfortunately, the amount moved from "busiest" to "this" is too
>> small to reduce the average load per task on "busiest" (at best there
>> will be no change and at worst it will get bigger).
>
> Peter, We don't need to reduce the average load per task on "busiest"
> always. By moving a "busiest_load_per_task", we will increase the
> average load per task of lesser busy cpu (there by trying to achieve
> the equality with busiest...)
>
> Can you give an example scenario where this patch helps? And doesn't
> the normal imabalance calculations capture those issues?

Yes, I think that the normal imbalance calculations (in
find_busiest_queue()) will generally capture the aim of having
approximately equal average loads per task on run queues. But this bit
of code is a special case in that the extra aggression being taken by
the load balancer (in response to a scenario raised by you) is being
justified by the imbalance in the average loads per task so it behooves
us to do the best we can to ensure that that imbalance is addressed.

I don't think this is true for try_to_wake_up() and some changes may be
desirable there. However, any such changes would interact with the RT
load balancing that Ingo is working on and would need to be considered
in conjunction with that.

Why I think "approximately equal average loads per task" is worthwhile
secondary aim for the load balancer is because it helps restore an
implicit aim (approximately equal numbers of tasks per run queue) that
was present in the original version. This in turn means that the
distribution of priorities within the queues will be similar and this
increases the chances that (on an N CPU system) the N highest priority
tasks will be on different CPUs. This is a desirable state of affairs.

Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-11 03:59    [W:0.069 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site