Ingo, thanks for clearing up some things.
yes. This 'un-sharing' of contexts happens unconditionally, whenever
we notice the situation. (ie. whenever a CPU goes completely idle
and notices an overloaded physical CPU.) On the HT system i have i
have measure this to be a beneficial move even for the most trivial
things like infinite loop-counting.
I have access to a 4-proc HT so I can try it there too. Did you test with
micro-benchmarks like the loop-counting or did you use something bigger?
the more per-logical-CPU cache a given SMT implementation has,
the less beneficial this move becomes - in that case the system
should rather be set up as a NUMA topology and scheduled via the
NUMA scheduler.
whew. So why are we perverting the migration thread to push
rather than pull? If active_load_balance() finds a imbalance,
why must we use such indirection? Why decrement nr_running?
Couldn't we put together a migration_req_t for the target queue's
migration thread?
i'm not sure what you mean by perverting the migration thread to
push rather to pull, as migration threads always push - it's not
different in this case either.
My bad -- I read the comments around migration_thread(), and they could
probably be improved. When I looked at the code, yes, it's more of
a push. The migration thread process occupies the processor so that
you can be sure the process-of-interest is not running and can be more
easily manipulated.
we could use a migration_req_t for this, in theory, but active
balancing is independent of ->cpus_allowed, so some special code
would still be needed.
I'm just looking for the cleanest approach. Functionally I see no
difference; just seems like we go running through the queues several times
(not all in active_load_balance) before active_load_balance has achieved
its goal. I was thinking maybe a directed move by the migration thread
("move THAT process to THAT processor/runqueue"), similar to what is done
in set_cpus_allowed(), might be cleaner and faster. Maybe I'll try that.
Also, active balancing is non-queued by nature. Is there a big
difference?
I'm not sure active balancing really is independent of cpus_allowed.
Yes, all the searches are done without that restriction in place, but
then we ultimately call load_balance(), which *will* care. load_balance()
may end up not moving what we wanted (or anything at all.)
Rick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:32 EST