Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: smart wake-affine

[Mike Galbraith]

On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 13:50 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: 
> On 06/03/2013 01:22 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> I agree that this idea, in other work, 'stop wake-affine when current is
> >> busy with wakeup' may miss the chance to bring benefit, although I could
> >> not find such workload, but I can't do promise...
> > 
> > Someday we'll find the perfect balance... likely the day before the sun
> > turns into a red giant and melts the earth.
> 
> Won't take so long ;-)
> 
> I would like to stop the regression on pgbench firstly, as PeterZ
> mentioned, if someone reported other regressions, we will know what is
> missing, if fix is possible, we fix it, if cost is too high, then I say
> we ignore the illegal income, after all, we could not benefit one in the
> cost of sacrifice others...
> 
> I'd like to fix the problem ASAP, it's really a big, urgent problem on
> my point of view, but doesn't win enough attentions as I thought it will...

I fully agree that it's a problem, but not that it's a regression.  The
"we became too buddy-centric" problem has existed for a long time, it's
just that pgbench in 1:N mode shows us how much that pull pull pull can
cost us in scalability.

A much more interesting pgbench test (imho) would be with one server per
socket.  1 server (mother of all work) driving a multi-socket sized load
is just silly, can't possibly scale, so it's important that improving
1:N pgbench (we can, and need to) doesn't harm sane loads.

-Mike

--
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/