Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964786Ab3CZOmV (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:42:21 -0400 Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:35480 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933490Ab3CZOmS (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:42:18 -0400 Message-ID: <1364308932.5053.46.camel@laptop> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 5/6] sched: pack the idle load balance From: Peter Zijlstra To: Vincent Guittot Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, pjt@google.com, santosh.shilimkar@ti.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, chander.kashyap@linaro.org, cmetcalf@tilera.com, tony.luck@intel.com, alex.shi@intel.com, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, len.brown@intel.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, corbet@lwn.net Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:42:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1363955155-18382-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1363955155-18382-6-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1364302359.5053.21.camel@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.2-0ubuntu0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1387 Lines: 39 On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 15:03 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > But ha! here's your NO_HZ link.. but does the above DTRT and ensure > > that the ILB is a little core when possible? > > The loop looks for an idle CPU as close as possible to the buddy CPU > and the buddy CPU is the 1st CPU has been chosen. So if your buddy is > a little and there is an idle little, the ILB will be this idle > little. Earlier you wrote: > | Cluster 0 | Cluster 1 | > | CPU0 | CPU1 | CPU2 | CPU3 | > ----------------------------------- > buddy | CPU0 | CPU0 | CPU0 | CPU2 | So extrapolating that to a 4+4 big-little you'd get something like: | little A9 || big A15 | | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 || 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ------+---+---+---+---++---+---+---+---+ buddy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 || 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Right? So supposing the current ILB is 6, we'll only check 4, not 0-3, even though there might be a perfectly idle cpu in there. Also, your scheme fails to pack when cpus 0,4 are filled, even when there's idle cores around. If we'd use the ILB as packing cpu, we would simply select a next pack target once the old one fills up. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/