Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751956AbaAGNcf (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:32:35 -0500 Received: from mail-oa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.219.54]:37192 "EHLO mail-oa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751868AbaAGNc1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:32:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140107131523.GX3694@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1386061556-28233-5-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org> <20131217141012.GG10134@e103034-lin> <20131217153809.GP21999@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <52B2F5D0.2050707@linaro.org> <20131220111926.GA11605@e103034-lin> <52BAF292.1070404@linaro.org> <20140102160404.GA3000@e103034-lin> <52CAB12B.4090701@linaro.org> <20140107125518.GE2936@e103034-lin> <20140107125930.GW31570@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140107131523.GX3694@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Vincent Guittot Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:32:07 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched: bias to target cpu load to reduce task moving To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Morten Rasmussen , Alex Shi , "mingo@redhat.com" , "daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" , "fweisbec@gmail.com" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "tony.luck@intel.com" , "fenghua.yu@intel.com" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "arjan@linux.intel.com" , "pjt@google.com" , "fengguang.wu@intel.com" , "james.hogan@imgtec.com" , "jason.low2@hp.com" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7 January 2014 14:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:59:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:55:18PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >> > My understanding is that should_we_balance() decides which cpu is >> > eligible for doing the load balancing for a given domain (and the >> > domains above). That is, only one cpu in a group is allowed to load >> > balance between the local group and other groups. That cpu would >> > therefore be reponsible for pulling enough load that the groups are >> > balanced even if it means temporarily overloading itself. The other cpus >> > in the group will take care of load balancing the extra load within the >> > local group later. >> >> Correct. > > On that; one of the things I wanted to (and previously did attempt but > failed) is trying to rotate this cpu. Currently its always the first cpu > (of the group) and that gives a noticeable bias. Isn't the current policy (it's the 1st idle cpu in priority). a good enough way to rotate the cpus ? Are you need the rotation for loaded use case too ? > > If we could slowly rotate the cpu that does this that would alleviate > both the load and cost bias. > > One thing I was thinking of is keeping a global counter maybe: > 'x := jiffies >> n' > might be good enough and using the 'x % nr_cpus_in_group'-th cpu > instead. > > Then again, these are micro issue and not a lot of people complain > about this. -- 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/