lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: power increase issue on light load
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Nikhil Rao <ncrao@google.com> wrote:
> Looking at the schedstat data Alex posted:
> - Distribution of load balances across cores looks about the same.
> - Load balancer does more idle balances on 3.0-rc4 as compared to
> 2.6.39 on SMT and NUMA domains. Busy and newidle balances are a mixed
> bag.
> - I see far fewer affine wakeups on 3.0-rc4 as compared to 2.6.39.
> About half as many affine wakeups on SMT and about a quarter as many
> on NUMA.
>
> I'm investigating the impact of the load resolution patchset on
> effective load and wake affine calculations. This seems to be the most
> obvious difference from the schedstat data.
>

I went through the math in effective load and wake affine and I think
it should be OK. There are a couple of corner cases where increasing
sched load resolution can change the result of wake affine -- I've
listed them below. However, I not convinced you are hitting these
cases often enough to make a noticeable difference. I'm looking into
the other LB paths...

- One corner case is because of rounding error in the shares update
path. Let's say the shares update logic assigned weight A to a sched
entity in the case with scaled resolution, and it assigned weight B
without scaling weights. Now, we expect A/1024 = B, but this is not
always the case because of rounding error. The difference between (A
and B*1024) gets amplified in wake_affine() since it multiplies
(weight+effective load) with imbalance pct and cpu power -- we
effectively scale this up by 5 orders of magnitude. In cases where
prev_eff_load and this_eff_load are pretty close, this difference can
result in a different result in wake_affine().

- There's a corner case in effective_load(), where if a task wakes up
on an empty cfs_rq, you could hit the clamp in effective_load (i.e. <
MIN_SHARES) which can affect prev_eff_load (you get a lower number --
making it less likely to do an affine wakeup). I think this patch
(against 3.0-rc4) will address that issue -- can you please give this
a try?

diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
index 433491c..6fcfbfc 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -1442,8 +1442,8 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group
*tg, int cpu, long wl, long wg)
wl = tg->shares;

/* zero point is MIN_SHARES */
- if (wl < MIN_SHARES)
- wl = MIN_SHARES;
+ if (wl < scale_load(MIN_SHARES))
+ wl = scale_load(MIN_SHARES);
wl -= se->load.weight;
wg = 0;
}

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-30 02:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans