[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 04/11] sched: unify imbalance bias for target group
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:50:47AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> Old code considers the bias in source/target_load already. but still
> use imbalance_pct as last check in idlest/busiest group finding. It is
> also a kind of redundant job. If we bias imbalance in source/target_load,
> we'd better not use imbalance_pct again.
> After cpu_load array removed, it is nice time to unify the target bias
> consideration. So I remove the imbalance_pct from last check and add the
> live bias using.
> On wake_affine, since all archs' wake_idx is 0, current logical is just
> want to prefer current cpu. so we follows this logical. Just renaming the
> target_load/source_load to wegithed_cpuload for more exact meaning.
> Thanks for reminding from Morten!

So this patch is weird..

So the original bias in the source/target load is purely based on actual
load figures. It only pulls-down/pulls-up resp. the long term avg with a
shorter term average; iow. it allows the source to decrease faster and
the target to increase faster, giving a natural inertia (ie. a
resistance to movement).

Therefore this gives rise to a conservative imbalance.

Then at the end we use the imbalance_pct thing as a normal hysteresis
control to avoid the rapid state switching associated with a single
control point system.

You completely wreck that, you also don't give a coherent model back.

The movement of imbalance_pct into target_load() doesn't make sense to
me either; it's an (expensive) no-op afaict. Seeing how:

100 * source_load() < imb_pct * target_load()

is very much equal to:

source_load() < (imb_pct * target_load()) / 100;

Except you get to do that div all over the place.

It also completely muddles the fact that its a normal hysteresis
control. Not a load bias. A fixed bias can never replace the inertial
control we had; it doesn't make sense as a replacement.

Not to mention you seem to ignore all concerns wrt the use of longer
term averages for the bigger domains.

Now I'm all for removing code; and so far the numbers aren't bad; but I
don't like the complete muddle you make of things at all.

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-25 15:41    [W:0.083 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site