lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/11] remove cpu_load in rq
On 18 February 2014 13:05, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 01:55:06AM +0000, Alex Shi wrote:
>> The cpu_load decays on time according past cpu load of rq. The sched_avg also decays tasks' load on time. Now we has 2 kind decay for cpu_load. That is a kind of redundancy. And increase the system load by decay calculation. This patch try to remove the cpu_load decay.
>>
>> There are 5 load_idx used for cpu_load in sched_domain. busy_idx and idle_idx are not zero usually, but newidle_idx, wake_idx and forkexec_idx are all zero on every arch. A shortcut to remove cpu_Load decay in the first patch. just one line patch for this change.
>>
>> V2,
>> 1, This version do some tuning on load bias of target load, to maximum match current code logical.
>> 2, Got further to remove the cpu_load in rq.
>> 3, Revert the patch 'Limit sd->*_idx range on sysctl' since no needs
>>
>> Any testing/comments are appreciated.
>
> Removing cpu_load completely certainly makes things simpler, my worry is
> just how much was lost by doing it. I agree that cpu_load needs a
> cleanup, but I can't convince myself that just removing it completely
> and not having any longer term view of cpu load anymore is without any
> negative side-effects.

Hi Alex,

Have you followed this thread about load_idx and the interest of using
them to use different average period ?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/6/499

Vincent

>
> {source, target}_load() are now instantaneous views of the cpu load,
> which means that they may change very frequently. That could potentially
> lead to more task migrations at all levels in the domain hierarchy as we
> no longer have the more conservative cpu_load[] indexes that were used
> at NUMA level.
>
> Maybe some of the NUMA experts have an opinion about this?
>
> In the discussions around V1 I think blocked load came up again as a
> potential replacement for the current cpu_load array. There are some
> issues that need to be solved around blocked_load first though.
>
> Morten


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-18 14:01    [W:1.852 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site