Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched: bias to target cpu load to reduce task moving

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:32:07PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 7 January 2014 14:15, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:59:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:55:18PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> >> > My understanding is that should_we_balance() decides which cpu is
> >> > eligible for doing the load balancing for a given domain (and the
> >> > domains above). That is, only one cpu in a group is allowed to load
> >> > balance between the local group and other groups. That cpu would
> >> > therefore be reponsible for pulling enough load that the groups are
> >> > balanced even if it means temporarily overloading itself. The other cpus
> >> > in the group will take care of load balancing the extra load within the
> >> > local group later.
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >
> > On that; one of the things I wanted to (and previously did attempt but
> > failed) is trying to rotate this cpu. Currently its always the first cpu
> > (of the group) and that gives a noticeable bias.
> 
> Isn't the current policy (it's the 1st idle cpu in priority). a good
> enough way to rotate the cpus ? Are you need the rotation for loaded
> use case too ?

Yeah its for the fully loaded case. And like I said, there's not been
many complaints on this.

The 'problem' is that its always same cpu that does the most expensive
full machine balance; and always that cpu that is the one that gains
extra load to redistribute in the group. So its penalized twice.

Like said, really minor issue. Just something I thought I'd mention.
--
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/