Re: [PATCH] sched: make update_sd_pick_busiest return true on a busier sd

[Rik van Riel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/23/2014 03:41 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:

> Regarding your issue with "perf bench numa mem" that is not spread
> on all nodes, SD_PREFER_SIBLING flag (of DIE level) should do the
> job by reducing the capacity of  "not local DIE" group at NUMA
> level to 1 task during the load balance computation. So you should
> have 1 task per sched_group at NUMA level.

Looking at the code some more, it is clear why this does not
happen. If sd->flags & SD_NUMA, then SD_PREFER_SIBLING will
never be set.


On a related note, that part of the load balancing code probably
needs to be rewritten to deal with unequal group_capacity_factors
anyway.

Say that one group has a group_capacity_factor twice that of
another group.

The group with the smaller group_capacity_factor is overloaded
by a factor 1.3. The larger group is loaded by a factor 0.8.
This means the larger group has a higher load than the first
group, and the current code in update_sd_pick_busiest will
not select the overloaded group as the busiest one, due to not
scaling load with the capacity...

static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
                                   struct sd_lb_stats *sds,
                                   struct sched_group *sg,
                                   struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
{
        if (sgs->avg_load <= sds->busiest_stat.avg_load)
                return false;

I believe we may need to factor the group_capacity_factor
into this calculation, in order to properly identify which
group is busiest.

However, if we do that we may need to get rid of the
SD_PREFER_SIBLING hack that forces group_capacity_factor
to 1 on domains that have SD_PREFER_SIBLING set.

I suspect that should be ok though, if we make sure
update_sd_pick_busiest does the right thing...

- -- 
All rights reversed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT0mOCAAoJEM553pKExN6DHq4H/2THfH33d+JYvfOq95OpGLaD
HATAp8Dv0kTiGjnbZrHPp8TqqgLLXuM6HhLvsvURuhoJw6F/nOX6qOQWEtjcMyYp
omShkDSLnPjs/0Iwf9vNocT7K7Sn3Gk0hOj6+ICW7wchyug8JYtuiHunP8pYrpzW
G6l2qHMRqRs5mSENY/uWwH9qh6Z6jcfDoDDDKRTNBe0z67FzwMnX1IYCUA6XOBsZ
iRdXe8E0CIgio+ek8HVzRm5sUlkRyfJpTXJj+pemVJhTrNCCbMGTHxzADU4Ngc8S
+JQ+G6bsHz9R4pffsuzYFbL0avK0mm5SrjCIatE7MX171dQJ1cKpju+fAmnwuNg=
=EAzG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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/