lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Inconsistent load average on tickless kernels
On 29.02.2012 13:06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Missing here is a kernel build with CONFIG_NO_HZ but booted with
> nohz=off; this would be an interesting data point because it includes
> all the funny code but still ticks are the right frequency.

You've asked for it and you got it. I have rebooted some servers with
nohz=off parameter set on kernels complied with CONFIG_NO_HZ=y. They're
the ones listed below with 'off' suffix.

On 29.02.2012 17:24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Hrmm, this suggests we age too hard with nohz code.. in your test case
> is there significant idle time? That is, suppose you run each cpu at 30%
> what is the period of you load? Running 3s out of 10s is significantly
> different from running .3ms out of 1ms.

It's definitely more similar to the second case - very frequent, but
short bursts of activity. A single process does a tiny bit of
computation mixed with a fair amount of network activity on each
request. There are 80 such processes which are responsible for majority
of system load.

On 29.02.2012 18:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>> The only thing I could find is that on nohz we can confuse the per-rq
>> sample period, does the below make a difference?
>
> Uhm, something like so that is..
>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index d7c4322..44f61df 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2380,7 +2380,8 @@ static void calc_load_account_active(struct rq *this_rq)
> if (delta)
> atomic_long_add(delta, &calc_load_tasks);
>
> - this_rq->calc_load_update += LOAD_FREQ;
> + while (!time_before(jiffies, this_rq->calc_load_update))
> + this_rq->calc_load_update += LOAD_FREQ;
> }
>
> /*
>

I have compiled another batch of kernels with this patch applied
(they're the ones with 'patch0' suffix). The only difference was the
patch had to go to kernel/sched.c, but that's what you get when not
using the latest sources. Anyway, here are the results accompanied by a
pretty picture [1]:

std off patch0
2.6.32.55-no-hz 0.76 0.91 -
2.6.32.55-no-hz-74f5187ac8 6.41 9.40 4.93
2.6.32.55-no-hz-0f004f5a69 0.78 0.92 0.90
2.6.37-rc5-no-hz-0f004f5a69 0.95 0.92 0.86
2.6.37-rc5-no-hz-pre-0f004f5a69 9.16 10.47 8.02

It seems that the patch didn't help much on kernels with 0f004f5a69
applied. The ones with just 74f5187ac8 are reporting a more plausible
values, but slightly lower than the ones without patch0. Am I right to
assume that the correct load values are the ones produced by kernels
complied with CONFIG_NO_HZ=n? Should they be the baseline?

I can run additional tests if you have other leads to follow. Is there a
particular kernel version I should focus on? If not I will continue
to use the current bundle. I'm also planning to give the latest stable
release a spin.


[1] http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/2204/kernelload.png

--
Lesław Kopeć

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-05 21:01    [W:0.052 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site