Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] sched: fix imbalance flag reset
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Jul 09 2014 - 06:43:47 EST
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 09:24:54AM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> In the example that I mention above, t1 and t2 are on the rq of cpu0;
> while t1 is running on cpu0, t2 is on the rq but does not have cpu1 in
> its cpus allowed mask. So during load balance, cpu1 tries to pull t2,
> cannot do so, and hence LBF_ALL_PINNED flag is set and it jumps to
> out_balanced. Note that there are only two sched groups at this level of
> sched domain.one with cpu0 and the other with cpu1. In this scenario we
> do not try to do active load balancing, atleast thats what the code does
> now if LBF_ALL_PINNED flag is set.
I think Vince is right in saying that in this scenario ALL_PINNED won't
be set. move_tasks() will iterate cfs_rq::cfs_tasks, that list will also
include the current running task.
And can_migrate_task() only checks for current after the pinning bits.
> Continuing with the above explanation; when LBF_ALL_PINNED flag is
> set,and we jump to out_balanced, we clear the imbalance flag for the
> sched_group comprising of cpu0 and cpu1,although there is actually an
> imbalance. t2 could still be migrated to say cpu2/cpu3 (t2 has them in
> its cpus allowed mask) in another sched group when load balancing is
> done at the next sched domain level.
And this is where Vince is wrong; note how
update_sg_lb_stats()/sg_imbalance() uses group->sgc->imbalance, but
load_balance() sets: sd_parent->groups->sgc->imbalance, so explicitly
one level up.
So what we can do I suppose is clear 'group->sgc->imbalance' at
In any case, the entirely of this group imbalance crap is just that,
crap. Its a terribly difficult situation and the current bits more or
less fudge around some of the common cases. Also see the comment near
sg_imbalanced(). Its not a solid and 'correct' anything. Its a bunch of
hacks trying to deal with hard cases.
A 'good' solution would be prohibitively expensive I fear.
Description: PGP signature