Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755391AbZCORRM (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:17:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753350AbZCORRA (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:17:00 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:49091 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752074AbZCORQ7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:16:59 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19catIQ0uhcmutxra4jJKT7uMjCMz16EIvUZM/P/V BjBS9HUUFgchUB Subject: Re: [patch] Re: scheduler oddity [bug?] From: Mike Galbraith To: Balazs Scheidler Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Willy Tarreau In-Reply-To: <1237125227.6919.1.camel@bzorp.balabit> References: <1236448069.16726.21.camel@bzorp.balabit> <1236505323.6281.57.camel@marge.simson.net> <1236506309.6972.8.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090308153956.GB19658@elte.hu> <1236529200.7110.16.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090308175255.GA22802@elte.hu> <1236585731.6118.24.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090309080714.GB24904@elte.hu> <1236596664.8389.331.camel@laptop> <1236604563.6027.8.camel@marge.simson.net> <1236605870.6515.5.camel@marge.simson.net> <1236606389.8389.518.camel@laptop> <1236607083.5980.8.camel@marge.simson.net> <1236607890.6168.7.camel@marge.simson.net> <1236609711.8389.583.camel@laptop> <1236612649.6019.38.camel@marge.simson.net> <1236615158.8389.705.camel@laptop> <1236619694.5998.9.camel@marge.simson.net> <1237125227.6919.1.camel@bzorp.balabit> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:16:54 +0100 Message-Id: <1237137414.5980.2.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: 0.53 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1955 Lines: 44 On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 14:53 +0100, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 18:28 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 17:12 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 16:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > +static void put_prev_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev) > > > > +{ > > > > + if (prev->state == TASK_RUNNING) { > > > > + u64 runtime = prev->se.sum_exec_runtime; > > > > + > > > > + runtime -= prev->se.prev_sum_exec_runtime; > > > > + runtime = min_t(u64, runtime, 2*sysctl_sched_migration_cost); > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * In order to avoid avg_overlap growing stale when we are > > > > + * indeed overlapping and hence not getting put to sleep, grow > > > > + * the avg_overlap on preemption. > > > > + */ > > > > + update_avg(&prev->se.avg_overlap, runtime); > > > > + } > > > > + prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev); > > > > +} > > > > > > Right, so we both found it worked quite well, I'm still slightly puzzled > > > but it. > > > > > > If something gets preempted a lot and will therefore have short runtimes > > > it will be seen as sync even though it might not at all be. > > > > Yes, and the netperf on 2 CPUs with shared cache numbers show that's > > happening. It just so happens that in the non-shared case, netperf's > > cache pain far outweighs the benefit of having more CPU available :-/ > > Any news on this? I haven't seen a patch that was actually integrated, > or I just missed something? It's in tip, as df1c99d416500da8d26a4d78777467c53ee7689e. -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/