lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 1/1] sched/fair: Consider asymmetric scheduler groups in load balancer
On 2023-07-04 15:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 01:46:01PM +0200, Tobias Huschle wrote:
>> The current load balancer implementation implies that scheduler
>> groups,
>> within the same domain, all host the same number of CPUs. This is
>> reflected in the condition, that a scheduler group, which is load
>> balancing and classified as having spare capacity, should pull work
>> from the busiest group, if the local group runs less processes than
>> the busiest one. This implies that these two groups should run the
>> same number of processes, which is problematic if the groups are not
>> of the same size.
>>
>> The assumption that scheduler groups within the same scheduler domain
>> host the same number of CPUs appears to be true for non-s390
>> architectures.
>
> Mostly; there's historically the cpuset case where we can create
> lopsided groups like that. And today we're growing all these hybrid
> things that will also tickle this, except they're looking towards
> different balancer extentions to deal with the IPC difference so might
> not be immediately caring about this here issue.
>
>
>> Signed-off-by: Tobias Huschle <huschle@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 48b6f0ca13ac..b1307d7e4065 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -10426,7 +10426,8 @@ static struct sched_group
>> *find_busiest_group(struct lb_env *env)
>> * group's child domain.
>> */
>> if (sds.prefer_sibling && local->group_type == group_has_spare &&
>> - busiest->sum_nr_running > local->sum_nr_running + 1)
>> + busiest->sum_nr_running * local->group_weight >
>> + local->sum_nr_running * busiest->group_weight + 1)
>
> Should that not be: busiest->group_weight * (local->sum_nr_running + 1)
> ?

I agree, adding the brackets makes more sense and is clearer on what's
intended by this check while also preserving the original behavior for
local->group_weight == busiest->group_weight

>
> I'm not opposed to this -- it seems fairly straight forward.

Appreciated, I will go ahead and send a patch once I incorporated the
other feedback I got.
Thanks.

>
>> goto force_balance;
>>
>> if (busiest->group_type != group_overloaded) {
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-07-07 09:46    [W:0.515 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site