Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751866AbbDHLNZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 8 Apr 2015 07:13:25 -0400
Received: from e23smtp08.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.141]:51063 "EHLO
	e23smtp08.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751229AbbDHLNX (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 8 Apr 2015 07:13:23 -0400
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:42:16 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        "riel@redhat.com" <riel@redhat.com>,
        "vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        "pjt@google.com" <pjt@google.com>,
        "benh@kernel.crashing.org" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        "efault@gmx.de" <efault@gmx.de>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com" <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        "svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com" <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: sched: Improve load balancing in the presence of idle CPUs
Message-ID: <20150408111216.GA24645@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1427741729.5694.24.camel@j-VirtualBox>
 <551A5CCE.70008@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1427828056.2492.24.camel@j-VirtualBox>
 <551B9514.80701@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150401170418.GX18994@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <1427954347.2556.43.camel@j-VirtualBox>
 <551FB5F5.5050906@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1428449300.2556.79.camel@j-VirtualBox>
 <1428451666.2556.84.camel@j-VirtualBox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1428451666.2556.84.camel@j-VirtualBox>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 15040811-0029-0000-0000-0000015CAAAA
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3310
Lines: 110

* Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> [2015-04-07 17:07:46]:

> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 16:28 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> 
> > Okay, so perhaps we can also try continuing nohz load balancing if we
> > find that there are overloaded CPUs in the system.
> 
> Something like the following.
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index fdae26e..d636bf7 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -7620,6 +7620,16 @@ out:
>  }
> 
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> +static inline bool nohz_kick_needed(struct rq *rq);
> +
> +static inline void pass_nohz_balance(struct rq *this_rq, int this_cpu)
> +{
> +	clear_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(this_cpu));
> +	nohz.next_balance = jiffies;

Why are we updating nohz.next_balance here?

> +	if (nohz_kick_needed(this_rq))
> +		nohz_balancer_kick();
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * In CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON case, the idle balance kickee will do the
>   * rebalancing for all the cpus for whom scheduler ticks are stopped.
> @@ -7631,8 +7641,10 @@ static void nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, enum cpu_idle_type idle)
>  	int balance_cpu;
> 
>  	if (idle != CPU_IDLE ||

Would it make sense to add need_resched here like
http://mid.gmane.org/1427442750-8112-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com

> -	    !test_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(this_cpu)))
> -		goto end;
> +	    !test_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(this_cpu))) {
> +		pass_nohz_balance(this_rq, this_cpu);
> +		return;
> +	}
> 
>  	for_each_cpu(balance_cpu, nohz.idle_cpus_mask) {
>  		if (balance_cpu == this_cpu || !idle_cpu(balance_cpu))

<snipped > 

> @@ -7687,7 +7700,7 @@ static inline bool nohz_kick_needed(struct rq *rq)
>  	int nr_busy, cpu = rq->cpu;
>  	bool kick = false;
> 
> -	if (unlikely(rq->idle_balance))
> +	if (unlikely(idle_cpu(cpu)))
>  		return false;


The only other place that we use idle_balance is
run_rebalance_domains(). Would it make sense to just use idle_cpu() in
run_rebalance_domains() and remove rq->idle_balance?

> 
>         /*
> @@ -7707,7 +7720,7 @@ static inline bool nohz_kick_needed(struct rq *rq)
>  	if (time_before(now, nohz.next_balance))
>  		return false;
> 
> -	if (rq->nr_running >= 2)
> +	if (rq->nr_running >= 2 || rq->rd->overload)
>  		return true;
> 
>  	rcu_read_lock();
> @@ -7757,16 +7770,14 @@ static void run_rebalance_domains(struct softirq_action *h)
>  	enum cpu_idle_type idle = this_rq->idle_balance ?
>  						CPU_IDLE : CPU_NOT_IDLE;
> 
> +	rebalance_domains(this_rq, idle);
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * If this cpu has a pending nohz_balance_kick, then do the
>  	 * balancing on behalf of the other idle cpus whose ticks are
> -	 * stopped. Do nohz_idle_balance *before* rebalance_domains to
> -	 * give the idle cpus a chance to load balance. Else we may
> -	 * load balance only within the local sched_domain hierarchy
> -	 * and abort nohz_idle_balance altogether if we pull some load.
> +	 * stopped.
>  	 */
>  	nohz_idle_balance(this_rq, idle);
> -	rebalance_domains(this_rq, idle);
>  }
> 
>  /*
> 
> 

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

--
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/