On 06/30/2014 09:35 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> The imbalance flag can stay set whereas there is no imbalance.
>
> Let assume that we have 3 tasks that run on a dual cores /dual cluster system.
> We will have some idle load balance which are triggered during tick.
> Unfortunately, the tick is also used to queue background work so we can reach
> the situation where short work has been queued on a CPU which already runs a
> task. The load balance will detect this imbalance (2 tasks on 1 CPU and an
> idle
> CPU) and will try to pull the waiting task on the idle CPU. The waiting task
> is
> a worker thread that is pinned on a CPU so an imbalance due to pinned task is
> detected and the imbalance flag is set.
> Then, we will not be able to clear the flag because we have at most 1 task on
> each CPU but the imbalance flag will trig to useless active load balance
> between the idle CPU and the busy CPU.
>
> We need to reset of the imbalance flag as soon as we have reached a balanced
> state.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index d3c73122..0c48dff 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6615,10 +6615,8 @@ more_balance:
> if (sd_parent) {
> int *group_imbalance =
> &sd_parent->groups->sgc->imbalance;
>
> - if ((env.flags & LBF_SOME_PINNED) && env.imbalance > 0)
> {
> + if ((env.flags & LBF_SOME_PINNED) && env.imbalance > 0)
> *group_imbalance = 1;
> - } else if (*group_imbalance)
> - *group_imbalance = 0;
> }
>
> /* All tasks on this runqueue were pinned by CPU affinity */
> @@ -6703,6 +6701,16 @@ more_balance:
> goto out;
>
> out_balanced:
> + /*
> + * We reach balance although we may have faced some affinity
> + * constraints. Clear the imbalance flag if it was set.
> + */
> + if (sd_parent) {
> + int *group_imbalance = &sd_parent->groups->sgc->imbalance;
> + if (*group_imbalance)
> + *group_imbalance = 0;
> + }
> +
> schedstat_inc(sd, lb_balanced[idle]);
>
> sd->nr_balance_failed = 0;
>
I am not convinced that we can clear the imbalance flag here. Lets take
a simple example. Assume at a particular level of sched_domain, there
are two sched_groups with one cpu each. There are 2 tasks on the source
cpu, one of which is running(t1) and the other thread(t2) does not have
the dst_cpu in the tsk_allowed_mask. Now no task can be migrated to the
dst_cpu due to affinity constraints. Note that t2 is *not pinned, it
just cannot run on the dst_cpu*. In this scenario also we reach the
out_balanced tag right? If we set the group_imbalance flag to 0, we are
ruling out the possibility of migrating t2 to any other cpu in a higher
level sched_domain by saying that all is well, there is no imbalance.
This is wrong, isn't it?
My point is that by clearing the imbalance flag in the out_balanced
case, you might be overlooking the fact that the tsk_cpus_allowed mask
of the tasks on the src_cpu may not be able to run on the dst_cpu in
*this* level of sched_domain, but can potentially run on a cpu at any
higher level of sched_domain. By clearing the flag, we are not
encouraging load balance at that level for t2.
Am I missing something?
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
