lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE
> At Facebook we have a pretty heavily multi-threaded application that is
> sensitive to latency. We have been pulling forward the old SD_WAKE_IDLE code
> because it gives us a pretty significant performance gain (like 20%). It turns
> out this is because there are cases where the scheduler puts our task on a busy
> CPU when there are idle CPU's in the system. We verify this by reading the
> cpu_delay_req_avg_us from the scheduler netlink stuff. With our crappy patch we
> get much lower numbers vs baseline.
>

Was this application run under cpu cgroup. Because we were seeing bursty
workloads exhibiting this behaviour esp when run under cpu cgroups.

http://mid.gmane.org/53A11A89.5000602@linux.vnet.ibm.com

--
Thansk and Regards
Srikar



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-28 14:21    [W:0.210 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site