Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1681474 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] sched/fair: Remove group imbalance from calculate_imbalance()

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] sched/fair: Remove group imbalance from  calculate_imbalance() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-07-05 13:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] sched/fair: Remove group imbalance from  calculate_imbalance() Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org> - 2017-07-07 17:30 +0200

#1681474 — Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] sched/fair: Remove group imbalance from calculate_imbalance()

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:18:58PM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> The group_imbalance path in calculate_imbalance() made sense when it was
> added back in 2007 with commit 908a7c1b9b80 ("sched: fix improper load
> balance across sched domain") because busiest->load_per_task factored into
> the amount of imbalance that was calculated. That is not the case today.

It would be nice to have some more information on which patch(es)
changed that.

> The group_imbalance path can only affect the outcome of
> calculate_imbalance() when the average load of the domain is less than the
> original busiest->load_per_task. In this case, busiest->load_per_task is
> overwritten with the scheduling domain load average. Thus
> busiest->load_per_task no longer represents actual load that can be moved.
> 
> At the final comparison between env->imbalance and busiest->load_per_task,
> imbalance may be larger than the new busiest->load_per_task causing the
> check to fail under the assumption that there is a task that could be
> migrated to satisfy the imbalance. However env->imbalance may still be
> smaller than the original busiest->load_per_task, thus it is unlikely that
> there is a task that can be migrated to satisfy the imbalance.
> Calculate_imbalance() would not choose to run fix_small_imbalance() when we
> expect it should. In the worst case, this can result in idle cpus.
> 
> Since the group imbalance path in calculate_imbalance() is at best a NOP
> but otherwise harmful, remove it.

load_per_task is horrible and should die. Ever since we did cgroup
support the number is complete crap, but even before that the concept
was dubious.

Most of the logic that uses the number stems from the pre-smp-nice era.

This also of course means that fix_small_imbalance() is probably a load
of crap. Digging through all that has been on the todo list for a long
while but somehow not something I've ever gotten to :/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1683251

On 7/5/2017 5:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:18:58PM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>> The group_imbalance path in calculate_imbalance() made sense when it was
>> added back in 2007 with commit 908a7c1b9b80 ("sched: fix improper load
>> balance across sched domain") because busiest->load_per_task factored into
>> the amount of imbalance that was calculated. That is not the case today.
> 
> It would be nice to have some more information on which patch(es)
> changed that.

 From the history it looks like commit dd5feea14a7d ("sched: Fix 
SCHED_MC regression caused by change in sched cpu_power") removed 
load_per_task from imbalance calculations (was factored into max_pull). 
After this change, the group imbalance modifications to this variable 
appear to no longer work as originally intended.

> 
>> The group_imbalance path can only affect the outcome of
>> calculate_imbalance() when the average load of the domain is less than the
>> original busiest->load_per_task. In this case, busiest->load_per_task is
>> overwritten with the scheduling domain load average. Thus
>> busiest->load_per_task no longer represents actual load that can be moved.
>>
>> At the final comparison between env->imbalance and busiest->load_per_task,
>> imbalance may be larger than the new busiest->load_per_task causing the
>> check to fail under the assumption that there is a task that could be
>> migrated to satisfy the imbalance. However env->imbalance may still be
>> smaller than the original busiest->load_per_task, thus it is unlikely that
>> there is a task that can be migrated to satisfy the imbalance.
>> Calculate_imbalance() would not choose to run fix_small_imbalance() when we
>> expect it should. In the worst case, this can result in idle cpus.
>>
>> Since the group imbalance path in calculate_imbalance() is at best a NOP
>> but otherwise harmful, remove it.
> 
> load_per_task is horrible and should die. Ever since we did cgroup
> support the number is complete crap, but even before that the concept
> was dubious.
> 
> Most of the logic that uses the number stems from the pre-smp-nice era.
> 
> This also of course means that fix_small_imbalance() is probably a load
> of crap. Digging through all that has been on the todo list for a long
> while but somehow not something I've ever gotten to :/ 

Based on the state of the code today, our change fixes a current issue 
that we are encoutering. If we add the above history to the commit text, 
is our change sufficent as a short term solution between now and 
whenever the load_per_task path is rearchitected?

-- 
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web