Re: [patch] sched: fix broken smt/mc optimizations with CFS

[Daniel Walker]

On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 14:13 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > [...] So how about the patch below instead?
> 
> the right patch attached.
> 
> -------------------------------->
> Subject: sched: fix broken SMT/MC optimizations
> From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> On a four package system with HT - HT load balancing optimizations were
> broken.  For example, if two tasks end up running on two logical threads
> of one of the packages, scheduler is not able to pull one of the tasks
> to a completely idle package.
> 
> In this scenario, for nice-0 tasks, imbalance calculated by scheduler
> will be 512 and find_busiest_queue() will return 0 (as each cpu's load
> is 1024 > imbalance and has only one task running).

Is there an upper bound on the number of tasks that can migrate during a
new idle balance? The reason that I'm asking is because I've been seeing
some large latency in the new idle path into load_balance().. I'm not
sure if lots of tasks are getting migrated or if it's just the iteration
over tasks in the rb-tree ..

Daniel

-
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/