[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: [PATCH] sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate

    >> On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 22:55 -0700, Doug Smythies wrote:
    > On 2012.06.13 01:17 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

    >> On my computer, and from a different thread from yesterday, I let
    >> the proposed "wang" patch multiple processes test continue for
    >> another 24 hours.

    > So I got waiter_1.txt and load_180.txt and tried running it, but it
    > takes _forever_... is there anything I can run that gives a reasonable
    > output in say 30 minutes?

    Yes, sorry it is painfully slow. The whole thing, if let go to completion
    takes 63 hours. And one can not use the computer for other activities,
    or it will bias the reported load average results (I sometimes cheat and
    do some editing). I only use the long term strongly filtered 15 minute
    reported load average. They are IIR (Infinite Impulse Response) filters
    and the script waits 4 time constants (1 hour) between graph lines
    (number of processes) as a transient response settling time and 2 time
    constants (30 minutes) between samples (the assumption being that the
    difference between samples is small). I suspect that 1 time constant (15
    minutes) between samples would be enough, but I was wanting to avoid bias
    due to filter lag.

    If I tried to get quick results by looking at the 1 minute reported load
    average, I often got confused and jumped to incorrect conclusions. There are
    many examples of the high noise level of the 1 minute reported loaded
    average in my web notes.

    All that being said, what I typically do with a new code test is:

    . select a known, previous bad operating point. For example 2
    processes, actual load average 0.30 (0.15 for each process) currently
    reporting ~1.5.

    . find the proper command line for those conditions and execute it for
    a long time. (For example look it up in load_180.txt) (yes, my main
    program command line stuff is less than friendly. I always forget how to
    use it.)

    . Observe via "top" and or "uptime". 30 minutes should be enough time here
    to know if the code is promising or not.

    . Make a decisions to do a longer term test or not. Often, I will do just
    one or two processes over a range of actual loads and or sleep frequencies.

    Please note: The main time waster loop inside the main program is computer
    dependent. It needs to be determined for your computer and then the script
    generating program needs to be re-compiled. See:

    #define LOOPS_PER_USEC 207.547 /* Tight loops per second.
    CONFIG_NO_HZ=n or y kernels */

    Which is for my computer with the CPUs locked in powersave mode (to avoid
    results confusion due to CPU throttling).

    @Peter: My code is done to the coding standards I have used for a long time,
    which is likely to annoy you as it is different than the kernel standards.
    Sorry. My web notes were a couple of days behind yesterday morning (my time)
    when you pulled the files. Suggest you use the "wang" [1] write up for
    source files and such.

    I am willing to make any special test code or whatever to help with this.
    Notice the absence of any test results from my own patch tests. My attempts
    have been disappointing.


    Doug Smythies

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-13 18:41    [W:0.026 / U:93.924 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site