Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752179AbaAGNlg (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:41:36 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:58391 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750910AbaAGNlY (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:41:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:40:55 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Vincent Guittot 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" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched: bias to target cpu load to reduce task moving Message-ID: <20140107134055.GA31570@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:32:07PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > 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 ? Yeah its for the fully loaded case. And like I said, there's not been many complaints on this. The 'problem' is that its always same cpu that does the most expensive full machine balance; and always that cpu that is the one that gains extra load to redistribute in the group. So its penalized twice. Like said, really minor issue. Just something I thought I'd mention. -- 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/