Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752602Ab3EFFXr (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2013 01:23:47 -0400 Received: from e23smtp08.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.141]:35240 "EHLO e23smtp08.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752613Ab3EFFXp (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2013 01:23:45 -0400 Message-ID: <518724D1.9040006@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 11:34:41 +0800 From: Michael Wang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Shi CC: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@alien8.de, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mgorman@suse.de, riel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] sched: consider runnable load average in effective_load References: <1367804711-30308-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1367804711-30308-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1367804711-30308-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13050605-5140-0000-0000-000003250C19 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2011 Lines: 65 Hi, Alex On 05/06/2013 09:45 AM, Alex Shi wrote: > effective_load calculates the load change as seen from the > root_task_group. It needs to engage the runnable average > of changed task. [snip] > */ > @@ -3045,7 +3045,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg, int cpu, long wl, long wg) > /* > * w = rw_i + @wl > */ > - w = se->my_q->load.weight + wl; > + w = se->my_q->tg_load_contrib + wl; I've tested the patch set, seems like the last patch caused big regression on pgbench: base patch 1~6 patch 1~7 | db_size | clients | tps | | tps | | tps | +---------+---------+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | 22 MB | 32 | 43420 | | 53387 | | 41625 | I guess some magic thing happened in effective_load() while calculating group decay combined with load decay, what's your opinion? Regards, Michael Wang > > /* > * wl = S * s'_i; see (2) > @@ -3066,7 +3066,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg, int cpu, long wl, long wg) > /* > * wl = dw_i = S * (s'_i - s_i); see (3) > */ > - wl -= se->load.weight; > + wl -= se->avg.load_avg_contrib; > > /* > * Recursively apply this logic to all parent groups to compute > @@ -3112,14 +3112,14 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int sync) > */ > if (sync) { > tg = task_group(current); > - weight = current->se.load.weight; > + weight = current->se.avg.load_avg_contrib; > > this_load += effective_load(tg, this_cpu, -weight, -weight); > load += effective_load(tg, prev_cpu, 0, -weight); > } > > tg = task_group(p); > - weight = p->se.load.weight; > + weight = p->se.avg.load_avg_contrib; > > /* > * In low-load situations, where prev_cpu is idle and this_cpu is idle > -- 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/