Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760690AbZFQSgq (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:36:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760266AbZFQSgL (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:36:11 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:39370 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760155AbZFQSgF (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:36:05 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,239,1243839600"; d="scan'208";a="700268327" Message-Id: <20090617182649.604970000@intel.com> User-Agent: quilt/0.46-1 Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:26:49 -0700 From: venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com To: Peter Zijlstra , Gautham R Shenoy , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Venkatesh Pallipadi , Suresh Siddha Subject: [patch 0/2] RFC sched: Change nohz ilb logic from poll to push model Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1643 Lines: 39 Existing nohz idle load balance (ilb) logic uses the pull model, with one idle load balancer CPU nominated on any partially idle system and that balancer CPU not going into nohz mode. With the periodic tick, the balancer does the idle balancing on behalf of all the CPUs in nohz mode. This is not very optimal and has few issues: * the balancer will continue to have periodic ticks and wakeup frequently (HZ rate), even though it may not have any rebalancing to do on behalf of any of the idle CPUs. * On x86 and CPUs that have APIC timer stoppage on idle CPUs, this periodic wakeup can result in an additional interrupt on a CPU doing the timer broadcast. * The balancer may end up spending a lot of time doing the balancing on behalf of nohz CPUs, especially with increasing number of sockets and cores in the platform. The alternative is to have a push model, where all idle CPUs can enter nohz mode and busy CPU kicks one of the idle CPUs to take care of idle balancing on behalf of a group of idle CPUs. Following patches tries that approach. There are still some rough edges in the patches related to use of #defines around the code. But, wanted to get opinion on this approach as an RFC (not for inclusion into the tree yet). Thanks, Venki Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha -- -- -- 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/