lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] sched, balancing: Update rq->max_idle_balance_cost whenever newidle balance is attempted
From
Date
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 00:13 -0700, Jason Low wrote: 
> On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 10:42 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> > I agree with this. However I am concerned with an additional point that
> > I have mentioned in my reply to Peter's mail on this thread.
> >
> > Should we verify if rq->next_balance update is independent of
> > pulled_tasks? sd->balance_interval is changed during load_balance() and
> > rq->next_balance should perhaps consider that?
>
> Hi Preeti,
>
> I agree that we may want to consider having rq->next balance update be
> independent of pulled_task. As you mentioned, load_balance() can modify
> the balance_interval.
>
> There are a few things I'm wondering if we would need to also add then:
>
> 1. In the case that this_rq->avg_idle < sysctl_sched_migration_cost, we
> would need to also traverse the domains to properly compute
> next_balance (without the sd->busy_factor) as we would be going idle.
> Otherwise, next_balance could get set to jiffies + HZ while the
> CPU goes idle.

Avoiding high frequency cache misses and cycle wastage on micro-idle was
what avg-idle was about. If you're going to traverse anyway, or have a
better way to not do that too frequently, you can just nuke it.

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-25 10:41    [W:0.315 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site