Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Avoid moving tasks when a schedule can be made. | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:15:54 -0500 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 14:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > [pls. use -p when generating patches] > > > @@ -1983,6 +1983,10 @@ > > > > curr = curr->prev; > > > > + /* bail if someone else woke up */ > > + if (need_resched()) > > + goto out; > > + > > if (!can_migrate_task(tmp, busiest, this_cpu, sd, idle, &pinned)) { > > if (curr != head) > > goto skip_queue; > > even putting the problems of this approach aside (is it right to abort > the act of load-balancing - which is a periodic activity that wont be > restarted after this - so we lose real work), i think this will not > solve the latency. Imagine a hardirq hitting the CPU that is executing > move_tasks() above. We might not service that hardirq for up to 1.5 > msecs ... > > i think the right approach would be to split up this work into smaller > chunks. Or rather, lets first see how this can happen: why is > can_migrate() false for so many tasks? Are they all cpu-hot? If yes, > shouldnt we simply skip only up to a limit of tasks in this case - it's > not like we want to spend 1.5 msecs searching for a cache-cold task > which might give us a 50 usecs advantage over cache-hot tasks ... >
OK, agreed.
Just to clear things up. I looked further into what was causing this, and the can_migrate was indeed true, and it just happened that we got a large imbalance, and it pulled a few hundred tasks. So, my earlier analysis was incorrect about the can_migrate being false.
-- Steve
- 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/
| |