Re: [PATCH] Fix smpnice high priority task hopping problem

[Peter Williams]

Peter Williams wrote:
> Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > Andrew, Please don't apply this patch. This breaks the existing HT
> > (and multi-core) scheduler optimizations.
> >
> > Peter, on a DP system with HT, if we have only two runnable processes
> > and they end up running on the two threads of the same package, with 
> > your patch, migration thread will never move one of those processes to 
> > the idle package..
>
>
> On a normal system, would either of them be moved anyway?
>
> > To fix my reported problem, we need to make sure that 
> > find_busiest_group()
> > doesn't find an imbalance..
>
>
> I disagree.  If this causes a problem with your "optimizations" then I 
> think that you need to fix the "optimizations".
>
> There's a rational argument (IMHO) that this patch should be applied 
> even in the absence of the smpnice patches as it prevents 
> active_load_balance() doing unnecessary work.  If this isn't good for 
> hypo threading then hypo threading is a special case and needs to handle 
> it as such.

OK.  The good news is that (my testing shows that) the "sched: fix 
smpnice abnormal nice anomalies" fixes the imbalance problem and the 
consequent CPU hopping.

BUT I still think that this patch (modified if necessary to handle any 
HT special cases) should be applied.  On a normal system, it will (as 
I've already said) stop active_load_balance() from doing a lot of 
unnecessary work INCLUDING holding the run queue locks for TWO run 
queues for no good reason.

Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/