Re: [QUERY] Confusing usage of rq->nr_running in load balancing

From: Preeti U Murthy
Date: Fri Sep 05 2014 - 08:20:13 EST

Hi Vincent,

On 09/03/2014 10:28 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 3 September 2014 14:21, Preeti U Murthy <preeti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
> Hi Preeti,
>> There are places in kernel/sched/fair.c in the load balancing part where
>> rq->nr_running is used as against cfs_rq->nr_running. At least I could
>> not make out why the former was used in the following scenarios.
>> It looks to me that it can very well lead to incorrect load balancing.
>> Also I did not pay attention to the numa balancing part of the code
>> while skimming through this file to catch this scenario. There are a
>> couple of places there too which need to be scrutinized.
>> 1. load_balance(): The check (busiest->nr_running > 1)
>> The load balancing would be futile if there are tasks of other
>> scheduling classes, wouldn't it?
> agree with you
>> 2. active_load_balance_cpu_stop(): A similar check and a similar
>> consequence as 1 here.
> agree with you
>> 3. nohz_kick_needed() : We check for more than one task on the runqueue
>> and hence trigger load balancing even if there are rt-tasks.
> I can see one potentiel reason why rq->nr_running is interesting that
> is the group capacity might have changed because of non cfs tasks
> since last load balance. So we need to monitor the change of the
> groups' capacity to ensure that the average load of each group is
> still in the same level
>> 4. cpu_avg_load_per_task(): This stands out among the rest as an
>> incorrect usage of rq->nr_running in place of cfs_rq->nr_running. We
>> divide the load associated with the cfs_rq by the number of tasks on the
>> rq. This will make the cfs_rq load look smaller.
> This one is solved in the consolidation of cpu_capacity patchset

Sorry, but I don't see where in your patchset you have addressed this
issue. Can you please point out the patch?

Preeti U Murthy

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at