Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] sched: Consider max cost of idle balance persched domain

[Jason Low]

On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 12:24 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> If we face a runq lock contention, then domain_cost can go up.
> The runq lock contention could be temporary, but we carry the domain
> cost forever (i.e till the next reboot).  How about averaging the cost +
> penalty for unsuccessful balance.
> 
> Something like 
> 			domain_cost = sched_clock_cpu(smp_processor_id()) - t0;
> 			if (!pulled_task)
> 				domain_cost *= 2;
> 		
> 			sd->max_newidle_lb_cost += domain_cost;
> 			sd->max_newidle_lb_cost /= 2;
> 				
> 				
> Maybe the name could then change to avg_newidle_lb_cost.
> 
> > +
> > +			curr_cost += domain_cost;
> >  		}
> > 

We tried keeping track of the avg in the v2 patch. It didn't really help
reduce the contention in idle balancing and we needed to also reduce
avg_idle by a factor of 10-20+ when comparing it to
avg_idle_balance_cost in order to get the good performance boosts.

One potential explanation why is that avg idle balance cost can often
have a large variation. That would make both computing the avg_idle and
comparing avg_idle with avg idle balance cost to not really be
consistent.

I think using the max allows us to keep the cost at a more constant rate
so that we can more meaningfully compare avg_idle with respect to "idle
balance cost". It also helps reduce the chance avg_idle overruns the
balance cost. Patch 3 reduces the max cost so that the value isn't kept
until the next reboot.

--
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/