Hi Alex I apologise for the delay in replying . On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com> wrote: > On 11/07/2012 12:37 PM, Preeti Murthy wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >> What I am concerned about in this patchset as Peter also >> mentioned in the previous discussion of your approach >> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/13/139) >> is that: >> >> 1.Using nr_running of two different sched groups to decide which one >> can be group_leader or group_min might not be be the right approach, >> as this might mislead us to think that a group running one task is less >> loaded than the group running three tasks although the former task is >> a cpu hogger. >> >> 2.Comparing the number of cpus with the number of tasks running in a sched >> group to decide if the group is underloaded or overloaded again faces >> the same issue.The tasks might be short running,not utilizing cpu much. > > Yes, maybe nr task is not the best indicator. But as first step, it can > approve the proposal is a correct path and worth to try more. > Considering the old powersaving implement is also judge on nr tasks, and > my testing result of this. It may be still a option. Hmm.. will think about this and get back. >> >> I also feel before we introduce another side to the scheduler called >> 'power aware',why not try and see if the current scheduler itself can >> perform better? We have an opportunity in terms of PJT's patches which >> can help scheduler make more realistic decisions in load balance.Also >> since PJT's metric is a statistical one,I believe we could vary it to >> allow scheduler to do more rigorous or less rigorous power savings. > > will study the PJT's approach. > Actually, current patch set is also a kind of load balance modification, > right? :) It is true that this is a different approach,in fact we will require this approach to do power savings because PJT's patches introduce a new 'metric' and not a new 'approach' in my opinion, to do smarter load balancing,not power aware load balancing per say.So your patch is surely a step towards power aware lb.I am just worried about the metric used in it. >> >> It is true however that this approach will not try and evacuate nearly idle >> cpus over to nearly full cpus.That is definitely one of the benefits of your >> patch,in terms of power savings,but I believe your patch is not making use >> of the right metric to decide that. > > If one sched group just has one task, and another group just has one > LCPU idle, my patch definitely will pull the task to the nearly full > sched group. So I didn't understand what you mean 'will not try and > evacuate nearly idle cpus over to nearly full cpus' No, by 'this approach' I meant the current load balancer integrated with the PJT's metric.Your approach does 'evacuate' the nearly idle cpus over to the nearly full cpus..
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/