Re: [patch 4/4] sched: Distangle worker accounting from rq->lock
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Jun 23 2011 - 08:51:23 EST
* Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello, Ingo.
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > * Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> The patch description is simply untrue. It does affect how wq
> >> behaves under heavy CPU load. The effect might be perfectly okay
> >> but more likely it will result in subtle suboptimal behaviors under
> >> certain load situations which would be difficult to characterize
> >> and track down. Again, the trade off (mostly killing of
> >> ttwu_local) could be okay but you can't get away with just claiming
> >> "there's no harm".
> > Well, either it can be measured or not. If you can suggest a specific
> > testing method to Thomas, please do.
> Crafting a test case where the suggested change results in worse
> behavior isn't difficult (it ends up waking/creating workers which
> it doesn't have to between ttwu and actual execution); however, as
> with any micro benchmark, the problem is with assessing whether and
> how much it would matter in actual workloads (whatever that means)
> and workqueue is used throughout the kernel with widely varying
> patterns making drawing conclusion a bit tricky. [...]
Well, please suggest a workload where it *matters* - as i suspect any
workload tglx will come up with will have another 90% of workloads
that you could suggest: so it's much better if you suggest a testing
When someone comes to me with a scheduler change i can give them the
workloads that they should double check. See the changelog of this
recent commit for example:
c8b281161dfa: sched: Increase SCHED_LOAD_SCALE resolution
So please suggest a testing method.
> [...] Given that, changing the behavior for the worse just for this
> cleanup doesn't sound like too sweet a deal. Is there any other
> reason to change the behavior (latency, whatever) other than the
> ttuw_local ugliness?
Well, the ugliness is one aspect of it, but my main concern is simply
testability: any claim of speedup or slowdown ought to be testable,
right? I mean, we'd like to drive people towards coming with patches
and number like Nikhil Rao did in c8b281161dfa, right?
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/