Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755953AbZCIDkX (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2009 23:40:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755777AbZCIDf3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2009 23:35:29 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:48388 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755761AbZCIDf1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2009 23:35:27 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19e2sE21jhebqgVXpdpUFgZcxl7ECqcymwf6jASUj 5pzmagFLrMnSL5 Subject: Re: scheduler oddity [bug?] From: Mike Galbraith To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Balazs Scheidler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20090308220319.GA570@1wt.eu> References: <1236448069.16726.21.camel@bzorp.balabit> <1236451624.16726.32.camel@bzorp.balabit> <1236541524.19045.6.camel@bzorp.balabit> <20090308220319.GA570@1wt.eu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 04:35:22 +0100 Message-Id: <1236569722.14798.5.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.44 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4165 Lines: 97 On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 23:03 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Balazs, > > On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 08:45:24PM +0100, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 19:47 +0100, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > > > On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 18:47 +0100, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I've tested this on 3 computers and each showed the same symptoms: > > > > * quad core Opteron, running Ubuntu kernel 2.6.27-13.29 > > > > * Core 2 Duo, running Ubuntu kernel 2.6.27-11.27 > > > > * Dual Core Opteron, Debian backports.org kernel 2.6.26-13~bpo40+1 > > > > > > > > Is this a bug, or a feature? > > > > > > > > > > One new interesting information: I've retested with a 2.6.22 based > > > kernel, and it still works there, setting the CPU affinity does not > > > change the performance of the test program and mpstat nicely shows that > > > 2 cores are working, not just one. > > > > > > Maybe this is CFS related? That was merged for 2.6.23 IIRC. > > > > > > Also, I tried changing various scheduler knobs > > > in /proc/sys/kernel/sched_* but they didn't help. I've tried to change > > > these: > > > > > > * sched_migration_cost: changed from the default 500000 to 100000 and > > > then 10000 but neither helped. > > > * sched_nr_migrate: increased it to 64, but again nothing > > > > > > I'm starting to think that this is a regression that may or may not be > > > related to CFS. > > > > > > I don't have a box where I could bisect on, but the test program makes > > > the problem quite obvious. > > > > Some more test results: > > > > Latest tree from Linus seems to work, at least the program runs on both > > cores as it should. I bisected the patch that changed behaviour, and > > I've found this: > > > > commit 38736f475071b80b66be28af7b44c854073699cc > > Author: Gautham R Shenoy > > Date: Sat Sep 6 14:50:23 2008 +0530 > > > > sched: fix __load_balance_iterator() for cfq with only one task > > > > The __load_balance_iterator() returns a NULL when there's only one > > sched_entity which is a task. It is caused by the following code-path. > > > > /* Skip over entities that are not tasks */ > > do { > > se = list_entry(next, struct sched_entity, group_node); > > next = next->next; > > } while (next != &cfs_rq->tasks && !entity_is_task(se)); > > > > if (next == &cfs_rq->tasks) > > return NULL; > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This will return NULL even when se is a task. > > > > As a side-effect, there was a regression in sched_mc behavior since 2.6.25, > > since iter_move_one_task() when it calls load_balance_start_fair(), > > would not get any tasks to move! > > > > Fix this by checking if the last entity was a task or not. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy > > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra > > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar > > > > > > This patch was integrated for 2.6.28. With the above patch, my test program uses > > two cores as it should. I could only test this in a virtual machine so I don't > > know exact performance metrics, but I'll test 2.6.27 + plus this patch on a real > > box tomorrow to see if this was the culprit. > > Just tested right here and I can confirm it is the culprit. I can reliably > reproduce the issue here on my core2 duo, and this patch fixes it. With your > memset() loop at 20k iterations, I saw exactly 50% CPU usage, and a final > sum of 794. With the patch, I see 53% CPU and 909. Changing the loop to 80k > iterations shows 53% CPU usage and 541 loops without the patch, versus > 639 loops and 63% CPU usage with the patch. Interesting. I'm testing in .git (Q6600), and it's only using one CPU unless I actively intervene. Doing whatever to pry the pair apart takes loops/sec from 70 to 84. -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/