lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and no load balance
From
Date
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 15:07 -0600, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> When load balancing gets switched off for a set of cpus via the
> sched_load_balance flag in cpusets, those cpus wind up with the
> globally defined def_root_domain attached. The def_root_domain is
> attached when partition_sched_domains calls detach_destroy_domains().
> A new root_domain is never allocated or attached as a sched domain
> will never be attached by __build_sched_domains() for the non-load
> balanced processors.
>
> The problem with this scenario is that on systems with a large number
> of processors with load balancing switched off, we start to see the
> cpupri->pri_to_cpu->lock in the def_root_domain becoming contended.
> This starts to become much more apparent above 8 waking RT threads
> (with each RT thread running on it's own cpu, blocking and waking up
> continuously).
>
> I'm wondering if this is, in fact, the way things were meant to work,
> or should we have a root domain allocated for each cpu that is not to
> be part of a sched domain? Note the the def_root_domain spans all of
> the non-load-balanced cpus in this case. Having it attached to cpus
> that should not be load balancing doesn't quite make sense to me.

It shouldn't be like that, each load-balance domain (in your case a
single cpu) should get its own root domain. Gregory?

> Here's where we've often seen this lock contention occur:

what's this horrible output from?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-03 23:35    [W:0.053 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site