Message-ID: <1369722552.5857.72.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: wake-affine throttle
From: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:29:12 +0200
In-Reply-To: <51A43A63.4090703@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <5164DCE7.8080906@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <519AE7F2.706@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <20130522084947.GQ26912@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <519C8F24.5060207@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <1369234551.5916.40.camel@marge.simpson.net>
	 <51A43A63.4090703@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1880
Lines: 45

On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 13:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: 
> On 05/22/2013 10:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 17:25 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> > 
> >> I've not test the hackbench with wakeup-buddy before, will do it this
> >> time, I suppose the 15% illegal income will suffered, anyway, it's
> >> illegal :)
> > 
> > On a 4 socket 40 core (+SMT) box, hackbench wasn't too happy.
> 
> I've done more test and now I got the reason of regression...
> 
> The writer and reader in hackbench is N:N, prev writer will write all
> the fd then switch to next writer and repeat the same work, so it's
> impossible to setup the buddy relationship by just record the last one,
> and we have to record all the waker/wakee in history, but that means
> unacceptable memory overhead...

Yeah, that's why I was thinking we'd need a dinky/fast as hell FIFO of
tokens or such to bind waker/wakee more or less reliably.  Making such a
scheme cheap enough could be hard.

> So this buddy idea seems to be bad...
> 
> I think a better way may should be allowing pull in most time, but
> filter the very bad cases carefully.

Any way that is cheap, and fairly accurately recognizes when we're being
stupid will help.  First and foremost, it has to be dirt cheap :)

> For workload like pgbench, we actually just need to avoid pull if that
> will damage the 'mother' thread, which is busy and be relied by many
> 'child'.

Yeah, 'mom' is the key player.  If we can cheaply recognize mom, that
should get us a generic improvement.  Not as good as being able to
recognize the size of her+brood as size changes, but better anyway.

-Mike

--
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/