Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755707AbYKCWc6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:32:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752563AbYKCWcv (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:32:51 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:52025 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751930AbYKCWcu (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:32:50 -0500 Subject: Re: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and no load balance From: Peter Zijlstra To: Dimitri Sivanich Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Gregory Haskins In-Reply-To: <20081103210748.GC9937@sgi.com> References: <20081103210748.GC9937@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:33:23 +0100 Message-Id: <1225751603.7803.1640.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1686 Lines: 33 On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 15:07 -0600, Dimitri Sivanich wrote: > When load balancing gets switched off for a set of cpus via the > sched_load_balance flag in cpusets, those cpus wind up with the > globally defined def_root_domain attached. The def_root_domain is > attached when partition_sched_domains calls detach_destroy_domains(). > A new root_domain is never allocated or attached as a sched domain > will never be attached by __build_sched_domains() for the non-load > balanced processors. > > The problem with this scenario is that on systems with a large number > of processors with load balancing switched off, we start to see the > cpupri->pri_to_cpu->lock in the def_root_domain becoming contended. > This starts to become much more apparent above 8 waking RT threads > (with each RT thread running on it's own cpu, blocking and waking up > continuously). > > I'm wondering if this is, in fact, the way things were meant to work, > or should we have a root domain allocated for each cpu that is not to > be part of a sched domain? Note the the def_root_domain spans all of > the non-load-balanced cpus in this case. Having it attached to cpus > that should not be load balancing doesn't quite make sense to me. It shouldn't be like that, each load-balance domain (in your case a single cpu) should get its own root domain. Gregory? > Here's where we've often seen this lock contention occur: what's this horrible output from? -- 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/