lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] sched: Nominate a power-efficient ILB
From
Date
On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 10:25 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is the second iteration of the patchset which aims at improving
> the idle-load balancer nomination logic, by taking the system topology
> into consideration.
>
> Changes from v1 (found here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/2/246)
> o Fixed the kernel-doc style comments.
> o Renamed a variable to better reflect it's usage.
>
> Background
> ======================================
> An idle-load balancer is an idle-cpu which does not turn off it's sched_ticks
> and performs load-balancing on behalf of the other idle CPUs. Currently,
> this idle load balancer is nominated as the first_cpu(nohz.cpu_mask)
>
> The drawback of the current method is that the CPU numbering in the
> cores/packages need not necessarily be sequential. For example, on a
> two-socket, Quad core system, the CPU numbering can be as follows:
>
> |-------------------------------| |-------------------------------|
> | | | | | |
> | 0 | 2 | | 1 | 3 |
> |-------------------------------| |-------------------------------|
> | | | | | |
> | 4 | 6 | | 5 | 7 |
> |-------------------------------| |-------------------------------|
>
> Now, the other power-savings settings such as the sched_mc/smt_power_savings
> and the power-aware IRQ balancer try to balance tasks/IRQs by taking
> the system topology into consideration, with the intention of keeping
> as many "power-domains" (cores/packages) in the low-power state.
>
> The current idle-load-balancer nomination does not necessarily align towards
> this policy. For eg, we could be having tasks and interrupts largely running
> on the first package with the intention of keeping the second package idle.
> Hence, CPU 0 may be busy. The first_cpu in the nohz.cpu_mask happens to be CPU1,
> which in-turn becomes nominated as the idle-load balancer. CPU1 being from
> the 2nd package, would in turn prevent the 2nd package from going into a
> deeper sleep state.
>
> Instead the role of the idle-load balancer could have been assumed by an
> idle CPU from the first package, thereby helping the second package go
> completely idle.
>
> This patchset has been tested with 2.6.30-rc1 on a Two-Socket
> Quad core system with the topology as mentioned above.
>
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> | With Patchset + sched_mc_power_savings = 1 |
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |make -j2 options| time taken | LOC timer interrupts | LOC timer interrupts|
> | | | on Package 0 | on Package 1 |
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |taskset -c 0,2 | | CPU0 | CPU2 | CPU1 | CPU3 |
> | | 227.234s | 56969 | 57080 | 1003 | 588 |
> | | |----------------------------------------------|
> | | | CPU4 | CPU6 | CPU5 | CPU7 |
> | | | 55995 | 703 | 583 | 600 |
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |taskset -c 1,3 | | CPU0 | CPU2 | CPU1 | CPU3 |
> | | 227.136s | 1109 | 611 | 57074 | 57091 |
> | | |----------------------------------------------|
> | | | CPU4 | CPU6 | CPU5 | CPU7 |
> | | | 709 | 637 | 56133 | 587 |
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
> We see here that the idle load balancer is chosen from the package which is
> busy. In the first case, it's CPU4 and in the second case it's CPU5.
>
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> | With Patchset + sched_mc_power_savings = 1 |
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |make -j2 options| time taken | LOC timer interrupts | LOC timer interrupts|
> | | | on Package 0 | on Package 1 |
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |taskset -c 0,2 | | CPU0 | CPU2 | CPU1 | CPU3 |
> | | 228.786s | 59094 | 61994 | 13984 | 43652 |
> | | |----------------------------------------------|
> | | | CPU4 | CPU6 | CPU5 | CPU7 |
> | | | 1827 | 734 | 748 | 760 |
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |taskset -c 1,3 | | CPU0 | CPU2 | CPU1 | CPU3 |
> | | 228.435s | 57013 | 876 | 58596 | 61633 |
> | | |----------------------------------------------|
> | | | CPU4 | CPU6 | CPU5 | CPU7 |
> | | | 772 | 1133 | 850 | 910 |
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
> Here, we see that the idle load balancer is chosen from the other package,
> despite choosing sched_mc_power_savings = 1. In the first case, we have
> CPU1 and CPU3 sharing the responsibility among themselves. In the second case,
> it's CPU0 and CPU6, which assume that role.

Both tables above claim to be _with_ the pathes :-), from the
accompanying text one can deduce its the bottom one that is without.

Patches look straight-forward enough, seems good stuff.

Thanks!



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-14 11:49    [W:0.123 / U:3.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site