On 9/10/23 03:03, Chen Yu wrote:
> On 2023-09-06 at 09:57:04 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
[...]
>>
>> I suspect we could try something like this then:
>>
>> When a cpu enters idle state, it could grab a sched_clock() timestamp
>> and store it into this_rq()->enter_idle_time. Then, when it exits
>> idle and reenters idle again, it could save rq->enter_idle_time to
>> rq->prev_enter_idle_time, and sample enter_idle_time again.
>>
>> When considering the CPU as a target for task migration, if it is
>> idle but the delta between sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq)) and that
>> prev_enter_idle_time is below a threshold (e.g. a few ms), this means
>> the CPU got out of idle and went back to idle pretty quickly, which
>> means it's not a good target for pulling tasks for a short while.
>>
>
> Do you mean inhit the newidle balance? Currently the newidle balance
> checks if the average idle duration of that rq is below the total cost
> to do a load balance:
> this_rq->avg_idle < sd->max_newidle_lb_cost
Not quite but..
>
>> I'll try something along these lines and see how it goes.
anyway this approach did not work based on my testing.
>>
>
> Consider the sleep time looks like a good idea! What you suggests that
> inspires me that, maybe we could consider the task's sleep duration,
> and decide whether to migrate it or not in the next wakeup.
>
> Say, if a task p sleeps and woken up quickly, can we reserve its previous
> CPU as idle for a short while? So other tasks can not choose p's previous
> CPU during their wakeup. A short while later, when p is woken up, it finds
> that its previous CPU is still idle and chooses that.
>
> I created a draft patch based on that, and it shows some improvements on
> a 224 CPUs system. I'll post the draft patch and Cc you.
I think your approach is very promising, let's keep digging into that
direction.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> thanks,
> Chenyu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com