lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [17]   [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
On 06/17/2015 05:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 11:06 -0700, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> On 06/11/2015 10:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:05 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>> If sd == NULL, we fall through and try to pull wakee despite nacked-by
>>> tsk_cpus_allowed() or wake_affine().
>>>
>>
>> So maybe add a check in the if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) for something
>> like this
>>
>> if (tmp >= 0) {
>> new_cpu = tmp;
>> goto unlock;
>> } else if (!want_affine) {
>> new_cpu = prev_cpu;
>> }
>>
>> so we can make sure we're not being pushed onto a cpu that we aren't
>> allowed on? Thanks,
>
> The buglet is a messenger methinks. You saying the patch helped without
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE being set is why I looked. The buglet would seem to say
> that preferring cache is not harming your load after all. It now sounds
> as though wake_wide() may be what you're squabbling with.
>
> Things aren't adding up all that well.

Yeah I'm horribly confused. The other thing is I had to switch clusters
(I know, I know, I'm changing the parameters of the test). So these new
boxes are haswell boxes, but basically the same otherwise, 2 socket 12
core with HT, just newer/faster CPUs. I'll re-run everything again and
give the numbers so we're all on the same page again, but as it stands
now I think we have this

3.10 with wake_idle forward ported - good
4.0 stock - 20% perf drop
4.0 w/ Peter's patch - good
4.0 w/ Peter's patch + SD_BALANCE_WAKE - 5% perf drop

I can do all these iterations again to verify, is there any other
permutation you'd like to see? Thanks,

Josef



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-18 06:01    [W:0.080 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site