lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] sched: The removal of idle_balance()
> The cache misses dropped by ~23% and migrations dropped by ~28%. I
> really believe that the idle_balance() hurts performance, and not just
> for something like hackbench, but the aggressive nature for migration
> that idle_balance() causes takes a large hit on a process' cache.
>
> Think about it some more, just because we go idle isn't enough reason to
> pull a runable task over. CPUs go idle all the time, and tasks are woken
> up all the time. There's no reason that we can't just wait for the sched
> tick to decide its time to do a bit of balancing. Sure, it would be nice
> if the idle CPU did the work. But I think that frame of mind was an
> incorrect notion from back in the early 2000s and does not apply to
> today's hardware, or perhaps it doesn't apply to the (relatively) new
> CFS scheduler. If you want aggressive scheduling, make the task rt, and
> it will do aggressive scheduling.
>

How is it that the normal tick based load balancing gets it correctly while
the idle_balance gets is wrong? Can it because of the different
cpu_idle_type?

--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-18 09:44    [W:1.306 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site