On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 17:42 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > >
> > > idle_balance(u64 idle_duration)
> > > {
> > > u64 cost = 0;
> > >
> > > for_each_domain(sd) {
> > > if (cost + sd->cost > idle_duration/N)
> > > break;
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > sd->cost = (sd->cost + this_cost) / 2;
> > > cost += this_cost;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > I would've initially suggested using something like N=2 since we're
> > > dealing
> > > with averages and half should ensure we don't run over except for the
> > > worst
> > > peaks. But we could easily use a bigger N.
> >
> > I ran a few AIM7 workloads for the 8 socket HT enabled case and I needed
> > to set N to more than 20 in order to get the big performance gains.
> >
>
> As per your observation, newly idle balancing isn't picking tasks and
> mostly finding the domains to be balanced. find_busiest_queue() is
> under rcu. So where and how are we getting these performance gains?
I actually just ran fserver on 8 sockets (which idle balance lowers the
performance in this workload at this socket count), and for this
workload, idle balancing is finding tasks to move fairly often on a
per-cpu basis. So I guess it is not always the case that idle balancing
isn't moving tasks on this box.
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
