lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sched: tweak select_idle_sibling to look for idle threads
On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 10:08:55AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Maybe give the criteria a bit margin, not just wakees tend to equal llc_size,
> > but the numbers are so wild to easily break the fragile condition, like:
>
> Seems lockless traversal and averages just lets multiple CPUs select
> the same spot. An atomic reservation (feature) when looking for an
> idle spot (also for fork) might fix it up. Run the thing as RT,
> push/pull ensures that it reaches box saturation regardless of the
> number of messaging threads, whereas with fair class, any number > 1
> will certainly stack tasks before the box is saturated.

Yes, good idea, bringing order to the race to grab idle CPU is absolutely
helpful.

In addition, I would argue maybe beefing up idle balancing is a more
productive way to spread load, as work-stealing just does what needs
to be done. And seems it has been (sub-unconsciously) neglected in this
case, :)

Regarding wake_wide(), it seems the M:N is 1:24, not 6:6*24, if so,
the slave will be 0 forever (as last_wakee is never flipped).

Basically whenever a waker has more than 1 wakee, the wakee_flips
will comfortably grow very large (with last_wakee alternating),
whereas when a waker has 0 or 1 wakee, the wakee_flips will just be 0.

So recording only the last_wakee seems not right unless you have other
good reason. If not the latter, counting waking wakee times should be
better, and then allow the statistics to happily play.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-09 05:01    [W:0.087 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site