Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: RFC [patch] sched: strengthen LAST_BUDDY and minimize buddy induced latencies V3 | | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | | Date | Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:24:16 +0200 |
| |
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 12:24 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > sched: strengthen LAST_BUDDY and minimize buddy induced latencies. > > This patch restores the effectiveness of LAST_BUDDY in preventing pgsql+oltp > from collapsing due to wakeup preemption. It also minimizes buddy induced > latencies. x264 testcase spawns new worker threads at a high rate, and was > being affected badly by NEXT_BUDDY. It turned out that CACHE_HOT_BUDDY was > thwarting idle balancing. This patch ensures that the load can disperse, > and that buddies can't make any task excessively late.
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c > @@ -2007,8 +2007,12 @@ task_hot(struct task_struct *p, u64 now, > > /* > * Buddy candidates are cache hot: > + * > + * Do not honor buddies if there may be nothing else to > + * prevent us from becoming idle. > */ > if (sched_feat(CACHE_HOT_BUDDY) && > + task_rq(p)->nr_running >= sched_nr_latency && > (&p->se == cfs_rq_of(&p->se)->next || > &p->se == cfs_rq_of(&p->se)->last)) > return 1;
I'm not sure about this. The sched_nr_latency seems arbitrary, 1 seems like a more natural boundary.
Also, one thing that arjan found was that we don't need to consider buddies cache hot if we're migrating them within a cache domain. So we need to add a SD_flag and sched_domain to properly represent the cache hierarchy.
|  |