On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com> wrote:
> Except using runnable load average in background, move_tasks is also
> the key functions in load balance. We need consider the runnable load
> average in it in order to the apple to apple load comparison.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 0bf88e8..790e23d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -3966,6 +3966,12 @@ static unsigned long task_h_load(struct task_struct
> *p);
>
> static const unsigned int sched_nr_migrate_break = 32;
>
> +static unsigned long task_h_load_avg(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + return div_u64(task_h_load(p) * (u64)p->se.avg.runnable_avg_sum,
> + p->se.avg.runnable_avg_period + 1);
Similarly, I think you also want to at least include blocked_load_avg here.
More fundamentally:
I suspect the instability from comparing these to an average taken on
them will not give a representative imbalance weight. While we should
be no worse off than the present situation; we could be doing much
better.
Consider that by not consuming {runnable, blocked}_load_avg directly
you are "hiding" the movement from one load-balancer to the next.
> +}
> +
> /*
> * move_tasks tries to move up to imbalance weighted load from busiest to
> * this_rq, as part of a balancing operation within domain "sd".
> @@ -4001,7 +4007,7 @@ static int move_tasks(struct lb_env *env)
> if (throttled_lb_pair(task_group(p), env->src_cpu,
> env->dst_cpu))
> goto next;
>
> - load = task_h_load(p);
> + load = task_h_load_avg(p);
>
> if (sched_feat(LB_MIN) && load < 16 &&
> !env->sd->nr_balance_failed)
> goto next;
> --
> 1.7.12
>
--
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/
