On 05/06/2013 11:34 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> > @@ -3045,7 +3045,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg,
>> > int cpu, long wl, long wg)
>> > /*
>> > * w = rw_i + @wl
>> > */
>> > - w = se->my_q->load.weight + wl;
>> > + w = se->my_q->tg_load_contrib + wl;
> I've tested the patch set, seems like the last patch caused big
> regression on pgbench:
>
> base patch 1~6 patch 1~7
> | db_size | clients | tps | | tps | | tps |
> +---------+---------+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
> | 22 MB | 32 | 43420 | | 53387 | | 41625 |
>
> I guess some magic thing happened in effective_load() while calculating
> group decay combined with load decay, what's your opinion?
thanks for testing, Michael!
Maybe 2 fix worth to try.
1, change back the tg_weight in calc_tg_weight() to use tg_load_contrib not
direct load.
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 6f4f14b..c770f8d 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1037,8 +1037,8 @@ static inline long calc_tg_weight(struct task_group *tg,
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
* update_cfs_rq_load_contribution().
*/
tg_weight = atomic64_read(&tg->load_avg);
- tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
- tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight;
+ //tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
+ //tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight;
return tg_weight;
}
2, another try is follow the current calc_tg_weight, so remove the follow
change.
>> > @@ -3045,7 +3045,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg,
>> > int cpu, long wl, long wg)
>> > /*
>> > * w = rw_i + @wl
>> > */
>> > - w = se->my_q->load.weight + wl;
>> > + w = se->my_q->tg_load_contrib + wl;
Would you like to try them?
--
Thanks
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
