Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:37:50 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: better wake-balancing: respin |
| |
* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Ingo, I wasn't aware that tasks are bouncing around wildly; does your > patch improve things? Then by definition it must penalise workloads > where the pairings are more predictable?
for TPC, most of the non-to-idle migrations are 'wrong'. So basically any change that gets rid of extra migrations is a win. This does not mean that it is all bouncing madly.
> I would prefer to try fixing wake balancing before giving up and > turning it off for busy CPUs.
agreed, and that was my suggestion: improve the heuristics to not hurt workloads where there is no natural pairing.
one possible way would be to do a task_hot() check in the passive balancing code, and only migrate the task when it's been inactive for a long time: that should be the case for most TPC wakeups. (This assumes an accurate cache-hot estimator, for which another patch exists.)
> Without any form of wake balancing, then a multiprocessor system will > tend to have a completely random distribution of tasks over CPUs over > time. I prefer to add a driver so it is not completely random for > amenable workloads.
but my patch does not do 'no form of wake balancing'. It will do non-load-related wake balancing if the target CPU is idle. Arguably, that can easily be 'never' under common workloads.
Ingo - 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/
| |