Re: [RFC] sched: The removal of idle_balance()

[Srikar Dronamraju]

> The cache misses dropped by ~23% and migrations dropped by ~28%. I
> really believe that the idle_balance() hurts performance, and not just
> for something like hackbench, but the aggressive nature for migration
> that idle_balance() causes takes a large hit on a process' cache.
> 
> Think about it some more, just because we go idle isn't enough reason to
> pull a runable task over. CPUs go idle all the time, and tasks are woken
> up all the time. There's no reason that we can't just wait for the sched
> tick to decide its time to do a bit of balancing. Sure, it would be nice
> if the idle CPU did the work. But I think that frame of mind was an
> incorrect notion from back in the early 2000s and does not apply to
> today's hardware, or perhaps it doesn't apply to the (relatively) new
> CFS scheduler. If you want aggressive scheduling, make the task rt, and
> it will do aggressive scheduling.
> 

How is it that the normal tick based load balancing gets it correctly while
the idle_balance gets is wrong?  Can it because of the different
cpu_idle_type?

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

--
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/