Re: [PATCH V2 Resend 3/4] workqueue: Schedule work on non-idle cpuinstead of current one
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Mon Jan 07 2013 - 08:28:14 EST
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 15:28 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Tejun,
> On 4 January 2013 20:39, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I don't know either. Changing behavior subtly like this is hard. I
> > usually try to spot some problem cases and try to identify patterns
> > there. Once you identify a few of them, understanding and detecting
> > other problem cases get a lot easier. In this case, maybe there are
> > too many places to audit and the problems are too subtle, and, if we
> > *have* to do it, the only thing we can do is implementing a debug
> > option to make such problems more visible - say, always schedule to a
> > different cpu on queue_work().
> > That said, at this point, the patchset doesn't seem all that
> > convincing to me and if I'm comprehending responses from others
> > correctly that seems to be the consensus. It might be a better
> > approach to identify the specific offending workqueue users and make
> > them handle the situation more intelligently than trying to impose the
> > behavior on all workqueue users. At any rate, we need way more data
> > showing this actually helps and if so why.
> I understand your concerns and believe me, even i feel the same :)
> I had another idea, that i wanted to share.
> Firstly the root cause of this patchset.
> Myself and some others in Linaro are working on ARM future cores:
> big.LITTLE systems.
> Here we have few very powerful, high power consuming cores (big,
> currently A15's) and
> few very efficient ones (LITTLE, currently A7's).
> The ultimate goal is to save as much power as possible without compromising
> much with performance. For, that we wanted most of the stuff to run on LITTLE
> cores and some performance-demanding stuff on big Cores. There are
> multiple things
> going around in this direction. Now, we thought A15's or big cores
> shouldn't be used
> for running small tasks like timers/workqueues and hence this patch is
> an attempt
> towards reaching that goal.
> Over that we can do some load balancing of works within multiple alive
> cpus, so that
> it can get done quickly. Also, we shouldn't start using an idle cpu
> just for processing
> work :)
> I have another idea that we can try:
I think this is a good idea.
> With this we would not break any existing code and can try to migrate
> old users to
> this new infrastructure (atleast the ones which are rearming works from their
> work_handlers). What do you say?
> To take care of the cache locality issue, we can pass an argument to
> this routine,
> that can provide
> - the mask of cpus to schedule this work on
> - Sched Level (SD_LEVEL) of cpus to run it.
I wouldn't give a mask. If one is needed, we could have a
queue_work_on_mask_cpus(), or something. I think the "any" in the name
should be good enough to let developers know that this will not be on
the CPU that is called. By default, I would suggest for cache locality,
that we try to keep it on the same CPU. But if there's a better CPU to
run on, it runs there. Also, we could still add a debug option that
makes it always run on other CPUs to slap developers that don't read.
> Waiting for your view on it :)
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/