Re: [PATCH?] Livelock in pick_next_task_fair() / idle_balance()

[Morten Rasmussen]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:53:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 07:25:11AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > And obviously, the idle balancing livelock SHOULD happen: one CPU pulls
> > tasks from the other, makes the other idle, and this iterates...
> > 
> > That being said, it is also obvious to prevent the livelock from happening:
> > idle pulling until the source rq's nr_running is 1, becuase otherwise we
> > just avoid idleness by making another idleness.
> 
> Well, ideally the imbalance calculation would be so that it would avoid
> this from happening in the first place. Its a 'balance' operation, not a
> 'steal everything'.
> 
> We want to take work -- as we have none -- but we want to ensure that
> afterwards we have equal work, ie we're balanced.

Agreed, I think this is the true problem. See my other reply.

> 
> So clearly that all is hosed. Now Morten was looking into simplifying
> calculate_imbalance() recently.

Yes. I'm held up doing other stuff at the moment, but I think
calculate_imbalance() needs some attention and I'm planning on looking at
that next.
--
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/