lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: keep quiescent cpu out of idle balance loop
From
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:20:30PM +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
>> Since cpu which is put into quiescent mode, would remove itself
>> from kernel's sched_domain. So we could use search sched_domain
>> method to check whether this cpu don't want to be disturbed as
>> idle load balance would send IPI to it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lei Wen <leiwen@marvell.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 235cfa7..14230ae 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -6783,6 +6783,8 @@ out_unlock:
>> * - When one of the busy CPUs notice that there may be an idle rebalancing
>> * needed, they will kick the idle load balancer, which then does idle
>> * load balancing for all the idle CPUs.
>> + * - exclude those cpus not inside current call_cpu's sched_domain, so that
>> + * those isolated cpu could be kept in their quisecnt mode.
>> */
>> static struct {
>> cpumask_var_t idle_cpus_mask;
>> @@ -6792,10 +6794,16 @@ static struct {
>>
>> static inline int find_new_ilb(void)
>> {
>> - int ilb = cpumask_first(nohz.idle_cpus_mask);
>> + int ilb;
>> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> + struct sched_domain *tmp;
>>
>> - if (ilb < nr_cpu_ids && idle_cpu(ilb))
>> - return ilb;
>> + for_each_domain(cpu, tmp) {
>> + ilb = cpumask_first_and(nohz.idle_cpus_mask,
>> + sched_domain_span(tmp));
>> + if (ilb < nr_cpu_ids && idle_cpu(ilb))
>> + return ilb;
>> + }
>
> The ILB code is bad; but you just made it horrible. Don't add pointless
> for_each_domain() iterations.
>
> I'm thinking something like:
>
> ilb = cpumask_first_and(nohz.idle_cpus_mask, this_rq()->rd.span);
>
> Should work just fine, no?

Yes, it has the same result as my previous patch did.

>
> Better still would be to maybe not participate in the ILB in the first
> place and leave this selection loop alone.

Not quitely get your point here...
Do you mean that you want idle cpu selection be put in earlier place
than current find_new_ilb is?

Thanks,
Lei


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-20 04:21    [W:0.637 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site