Message-ID: <1433393548.3651.45.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for
 BALANCE_WAKE
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        morten.rasmussen@arm.com, kernel-team <Kernel-team@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 06:52:28 +0200
In-Reply-To: <556F64B9.1050603@fb.com>
References: <1432761736-22093-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com>
	 <20150528102127.GD3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <20150528110514.GR18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <5568D43D.20703@fb.com> <556CB4A8.1050509@fb.com>
	 <1433191354.11346.22.camel@twins> <556DE3FB.9020400@fb.com>
	 <556F0B5E.6030805@redhat.com> <1433341448.1495.4.camel@twins>
	 <1433345444.3343.21.camel@gmail.com> <556F23E5.5020107@fb.com>
	 <1433350386.3996.15.camel@gmail.com> <556F3677.2090206@fb.com>
	 <1433353411.3407.15.camel@gmail.com> <556F64B9.1050603@fb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1874
Lines: 39

On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 16:34 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 01:43 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> > There are also other loads like your server where waking to an idle cpu
> > dominates all else, pgbench is one of those.  In that case, you've got a
> > 1:N waker/wakee relationship, and what matters above ALL else is when
> > the mother of all work (the single server thread) wants a CPU, it had
> > better get it NOW, else the load stalls.  Likewise, 'mom' being
> > preempted hurts truckloads.  Perhaps your server has a similar thing
> > going on, keeping wakees the hell away from the waker rules all.
> >
> 
> Yeah our server has two waker threads (one per numa node) and then the N 
> number of wakee threads.  I'll run tbench and pgbench with the new 
> patches and see if there's a degredation.  Thanks,

If you look for wake_wide(), it could perhaps be used to select wider
search for only the right flavor load component when BALANCE_WAKE is
set.  That would let the cache lovers in your box continue to perform
while improving the 1:N component.  That wider search still needs to
become cheaper though, low hanging fruit being to stop searching when
you find load = 0.. but you may meet the energy efficient folks, who
iirc want to make it even more expensive.

wake_wide() inadvertently helped another sore spot btw - a gaggle of
pretty light tasks being awakened from an interrupt source tended to
cluster around that source, preventing such loads from being all they
can be in a very similar manner.  Xen (shudder;) showed that nicely in
older kernels, due to the way its weird dom0 gizmo works.

	-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/