MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1480088073-11642-3-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
References: <1480088073-11642-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1480088073-11642-3-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
From: Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 19:31:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CAE40pde4VRH8LfRWMX3Vfq5pRoysUB6UuHTzN+VrcKMdSNW0uA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] sched: use load_avg for selecting idlest group
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, matt@codeblueprint.co.uk,
        Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        kernellwp@gmail.com, yuyang.du@intel.com, umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1079
Lines: 24

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> find_idlest_group() only compares the runnable_load_avg when looking for
> the least loaded group. But on fork intensive use case like hackbench
> where tasks blocked quickly after the fork, this can lead to selecting the
> same CPU instead of other CPUs, which have similar runnable load but a
> lower load_avg.
>
> When the runnable_load_avg of 2 CPUs are close, we now take into account
> the amount of blocked load as a 2nd selection factor. There is now 3 zones
> for the runnable_load of the rq:
> -[0 .. (runnable_load - imbalance)] : Select the new rq which has
> significantly less runnable_load
> -](runnable_load - imbalance) .. (runnable_load + imbalance)[ : The
> runnable load are close so we use load_avg to chose between the 2 rq
> -[(runnable_load + imbalance) .. ULONG_MAX] : Keep the current rq which
> has significantly less runnable_load
>

For background, is this from the "A decade of wasted cores" paper's
patches? What's the expected typical gain? Thanks,

Brendan