Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > What's the biggest you've seen?
> 
> Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_%28microarchitecture%29
> 
> Tell us HSW-E[PX] have 18 cores 36 thread SKUs.
> 
> But yes, what Mike says, its bound to only get bigger.

So it's starting to get big enough to warrant an optimization of the way we 
account and discover idle CPUs:

So when a CPU goes idle, it has idle cycles it could spend on registering itself 
in either an idle-CPUs bitmap, or in an idle-CPUs queue. The queue (or bitmap) 
would strictly be only shared between CPUs within the same domain, so the cache 
bouncing cost from that is still small and package-local. (We remote access 
overhead in select_idle_sibling() already, due to having to access half of all 
remote rqs on average.)

Such an approach would make select_idle_sibling() independent on the size of the 
cores domain, it would make it essentially O(1).

( There's a bit of a complication with rq->wake_list, but I think it would be good
  enough to just register/unregister from the idle handler, if something is idle 
  only short term it should probably not be considered for SMP balancing. )

But I'd definitely not go towards making our SMP balancing macro idle selection 
decisions poorer, just because our internal implementation is 
O(nr_cores_per_package) ...

Agreed?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/