lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: reduce busy load balance interval
Hi, Vincent

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 18:07, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> The busy_factor, which increases load balance interval when a cpu is busy,
> is set to 32 by default. This value generates some huge LB interval on
> large system like the THX2 made of 2 node x 28 cores x 4 threads.
> For such system, the interval increases from 112ms to 3584ms at MC level.
> And from 228ms to 7168ms at NUMA level.
Agreed that the interval is too big for that case.
But would it be too small for an AMD environment(like ROME) with 8cpu
at MC level(CCX), if we reduce busy_factor?
For that case, the interval could be reduced from 256ms to 128ms.
Or should we define an MIN_INTERVAL for MC level to avoid too small interval?

Thx.
Regards,
Jiang

>
> Even on smaller system, a lower busy factor has shown improvement on the
> fair distribution of the running time so let reduce it for all.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/topology.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> index 1a84b778755d..a8477c9e8569 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> @@ -1336,7 +1336,7 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl,
> *sd = (struct sched_domain){
> .min_interval = sd_weight,
> .max_interval = 2*sd_weight,
> - .busy_factor = 32,
> + .busy_factor = 16,
> .imbalance_pct = 117,
>
> .cache_nice_tries = 0,
> --
> 2.17.1
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-15 11:12    [W:0.120 / U:2.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site