Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On 05/30/2013 01:00 AM, Jason Low wrote: > On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 23:17 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load >> avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi > > Hi Alex, > > I have been testing these patches with a Java server workload on an 8 > socket (80 core) box with Hyperthreading enabled, and I have been seeing > good results with these patches. > > When using a 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with patches 1-8, there was about a 40% > improvement in performance of the workload compared to when using the > vanilla 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with no patches. When using a 3.10-rc2 tip > kernel with just patches 1-7, the performance improvement of the > workload over the vanilla 3.10-rc2 tip kernel was about 25%. > > Tested-by: Jason Low > That is impressive! Thanks a lot for your testing! Just curious, what the benchmark are you using? :) > Thanks, > Jason > -- Thanks Alex -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 23:17 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load > avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi Hi Alex, I have been testing these patches with a Java server workload on an 8 socket (80 core) box with Hyperthreading enabled, and I have been seeing good results with these patches. When using a 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with patches 1-8, there was about a 40% improvement in performance of the workload compared to when using the vanilla 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with no patches. When using a 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with just patches 1-7, the performance improvement of the workload over the vanilla 3.10-rc2 tip kernel was about 25%. Tested-by: Jason Low Thanks, Jason -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 23:17 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it. Signed-off-by: Alex Shi alex@intel.com Hi Alex, I have been testing these patches with a Java server workload on an 8 socket (80 core) box with Hyperthreading enabled, and I have been seeing good results with these patches. When using a 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with patches 1-8, there was about a 40% improvement in performance of the workload compared to when using the vanilla 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with no patches. When using a 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with just patches 1-7, the performance improvement of the workload over the vanilla 3.10-rc2 tip kernel was about 25%. Tested-by: Jason Low jason.l...@hp.com Thanks, Jason -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On 05/30/2013 01:00 AM, Jason Low wrote: On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 23:17 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it. Signed-off-by: Alex Shi alex@intel.com Hi Alex, I have been testing these patches with a Java server workload on an 8 socket (80 core) box with Hyperthreading enabled, and I have been seeing good results with these patches. When using a 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with patches 1-8, there was about a 40% improvement in performance of the workload compared to when using the vanilla 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with no patches. When using a 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with just patches 1-7, the performance improvement of the workload over the vanilla 3.10-rc2 tip kernel was about 25%. Tested-by: Jason Low jason.l...@hp.com That is impressive! Thanks a lot for your testing! Just curious, what the benchmark are you using? :) Thanks, Jason -- Thanks Alex -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On 05/16/2013 05:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:35:25PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> > I tested all benchmarks on cover letter maintained, aim7, kbuild etc. >> > with autogroup enabled. There is no clear performance change. >> > But since the machine just run benchmark without anyother load, that >> > doesn't enough. > Back when we started with smp-fair cgroup muck someone wrote a test for it. I > _think_ it ended up in the LTP test-suite. Peter: copy changlong's testing result again, the ltp cgroup stress testing show this patchset can reduce the stress testing time: # run test 7. sudo ./runltp -p -l /tmp/cgroup.results.log -d /tmp -o /tmp/cgroup.log -f cgroup my test results: 3.10-rc1 patch1-7 patch1-8 duration=764 duration=754 duration=750 duration=764 duration=754 duration=751 duration=763 duration=755 duration=751 duration means the seconds of testing cost. Tested-by: Changlong Xie Paul, would you like to give some comments? > > Now I don't know if that's up-to-date enough to catch some of the cases we've > recently fixed (as in the past few years) so it might want to be updated. > > Paul, do you guys at Google have some nice test-cases for all this? -- Thanks Alex -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On 05/16/2013 05:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:35:25PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: I tested all benchmarks on cover letter maintained, aim7, kbuild etc. with autogroup enabled. There is no clear performance change. But since the machine just run benchmark without anyother load, that doesn't enough. Back when we started with smp-fair cgroup muck someone wrote a test for it. I _think_ it ended up in the LTP test-suite. Peter: copy changlong's testing result again, the ltp cgroup stress testing show this patchset can reduce the stress testing time: # run test 7. sudo ./runltp -p -l /tmp/cgroup.results.log -d /tmp -o /tmp/cgroup.log -f cgroup my test results: 3.10-rc1 patch1-7 patch1-8 duration=764 duration=754 duration=750 duration=764 duration=754 duration=751 duration=763 duration=755 duration=751 duration means the seconds of testing cost. Tested-by: Changlong Xie changlongx@intel.com Paul, would you like to give some comments? Now I don't know if that's up-to-date enough to catch some of the cases we've recently fixed (as in the past few years) so it might want to be updated. Paul, do you guys at Google have some nice test-cases for all this? -- Thanks Alex -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On 05/23/2013 03:32 PM, Changlong Xie wrote: > 2013/5/16 Peter Zijlstra : >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:35:25PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> >>> I tested all benchmarks on cover letter maintained, aim7, kbuild etc. >>> with autogroup enabled. There is no clear performance change. >>> But since the machine just run benchmark without anyother load, that >>> doesn't enough. >> >> Back when we started with smp-fair cgroup muck someone wrote a test for it. I >> _think_ it ended up in the LTP test-suite. >> > > Hi Peter > > my test results: > 3.10-rc1 patch1-7 patch1-8 > duration=764 duration=754 duration=750 > duration=764 duration=754 duration=751 > duration=763 duration=755 duration=751 > > duration means the seconds of testing cost. > > Tested-by: Changlong Xie Seems the 8th patch is helpful on cgroup. Thanks Changlong! -- Thanks Alex -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
2013/5/16 Peter Zijlstra : > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:35:25PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> I tested all benchmarks on cover letter maintained, aim7, kbuild etc. >> with autogroup enabled. There is no clear performance change. >> But since the machine just run benchmark without anyother load, that >> doesn't enough. > > Back when we started with smp-fair cgroup muck someone wrote a test for it. I > _think_ it ended up in the LTP test-suite. > Hi Peter I just download the lastest ltp from http://sourceforge.net/projects/ltp/files/LTP%20Source/ltp-20130503/ and do cgroup benchmark tests on our SB-EP machine with 2S*8CORE*2SMT, 64G memory. Following is my testing procedures: 1. tar -xvf ltp-full-20130503.tar 2. cd ltp-full-20130503 3. ./configure prefix=/mnt/ltp && make -j32 && sudo make install 4. cd /mnt/ltp # create general testcase named cgroup_fj 5. echo -e "cgroup_fj run_cgroup_test_fj.sh" > runtest/cgroup # we only test cpuset/cpu/cpuacct cgroup benchmark cases, here is my cgroup_fj_testcases.sh 6. [changlox@lkp-sb03 bin]$ cat testcases/bin/cgroup_fj_testcases.sh stress 2 2 1 1 1 stress 4 2 1 1 1 stress 5 2 1 1 1 stress 2 1 1 1 2 stress 2 1 1 2 1 stress 2 1 1 2 2 stress 2 1 1 2 3 stress 2 1 2 1 1 stress 2 1 2 1 2 stress 2 1 2 1 3 stress 2 1 2 2 1 stress 2 1 2 2 2 stress 4 1 1 1 2 stress 4 1 2 1 1 stress 4 1 2 1 2 stress 4 1 2 1 3 stress 5 1 1 1 2 stress 5 1 1 2 1 stress 5 1 1 2 2 stress 5 1 1 2 3 stress 5 1 2 1 1 stress 5 1 2 1 2 stress 5 1 2 1 3 stress 5 1 2 2 1 stress 5 1 2 2 2 # run test 7. sudo ./runltp -p -l /tmp/cgroup.results.log -d /tmp -o /tmp/cgroup.log -f cgroup my test results: 3.10-rc1 patch1-7 patch1-8 duration=764 duration=754 duration=750 duration=764 duration=754 duration=751 duration=763 duration=755 duration=751 duration means the seconds of testing cost. Tested-by: Changlong Xie > Now I don't know if that's up-to-date enough to catch some of the cases we've > recently fixed (as in the past few years) so it might want to be updated. > > Paul, do you guys at Google have some nice test-cases for all this? > -- > 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/ -- Best regards Changlox -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
2013/5/16 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:35:25PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: I tested all benchmarks on cover letter maintained, aim7, kbuild etc. with autogroup enabled. There is no clear performance change. But since the machine just run benchmark without anyother load, that doesn't enough. Back when we started with smp-fair cgroup muck someone wrote a test for it. I _think_ it ended up in the LTP test-suite. Hi Peter I just download the lastest ltp from http://sourceforge.net/projects/ltp/files/LTP%20Source/ltp-20130503/ and do cgroup benchmark tests on our SB-EP machine with 2S*8CORE*2SMT, 64G memory. Following is my testing procedures: 1. tar -xvf ltp-full-20130503.tar 2. cd ltp-full-20130503 3. ./configure prefix=/mnt/ltp make -j32 sudo make install 4. cd /mnt/ltp # create general testcase named cgroup_fj 5. echo -e cgroup_fj run_cgroup_test_fj.sh runtest/cgroup # we only test cpuset/cpu/cpuacct cgroup benchmark cases, here is my cgroup_fj_testcases.sh 6. [changlox@lkp-sb03 bin]$ cat testcases/bin/cgroup_fj_testcases.sh stress 2 2 1 1 1 stress 4 2 1 1 1 stress 5 2 1 1 1 stress 2 1 1 1 2 stress 2 1 1 2 1 stress 2 1 1 2 2 stress 2 1 1 2 3 stress 2 1 2 1 1 stress 2 1 2 1 2 stress 2 1 2 1 3 stress 2 1 2 2 1 stress 2 1 2 2 2 stress 4 1 1 1 2 stress 4 1 2 1 1 stress 4 1 2 1 2 stress 4 1 2 1 3 stress 5 1 1 1 2 stress 5 1 1 2 1 stress 5 1 1 2 2 stress 5 1 1 2 3 stress 5 1 2 1 1 stress 5 1 2 1 2 stress 5 1 2 1 3 stress 5 1 2 2 1 stress 5 1 2 2 2 # run test 7. sudo ./runltp -p -l /tmp/cgroup.results.log -d /tmp -o /tmp/cgroup.log -f cgroup my test results: 3.10-rc1 patch1-7 patch1-8 duration=764 duration=754 duration=750 duration=764 duration=754 duration=751 duration=763 duration=755 duration=751 duration means the seconds of testing cost. Tested-by: Changlong Xie changlongx@intel.com Now I don't know if that's up-to-date enough to catch some of the cases we've recently fixed (as in the past few years) so it might want to be updated. Paul, do you guys at Google have some nice test-cases for all this? -- 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/ -- Best regards Changlox -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On 05/23/2013 03:32 PM, Changlong Xie wrote: 2013/5/16 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:35:25PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: I tested all benchmarks on cover letter maintained, aim7, kbuild etc. with autogroup enabled. There is no clear performance change. But since the machine just run benchmark without anyother load, that doesn't enough. Back when we started with smp-fair cgroup muck someone wrote a test for it. I _think_ it ended up in the LTP test-suite. Hi Peter my test results: 3.10-rc1 patch1-7 patch1-8 duration=764 duration=754 duration=750 duration=764 duration=754 duration=751 duration=763 duration=755 duration=751 duration means the seconds of testing cost. Tested-by: Changlong Xie changlongx@intel.com Seems the 8th patch is helpful on cgroup. Thanks Changlong! -- Thanks Alex -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:35:25PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > I tested all benchmarks on cover letter maintained, aim7, kbuild etc. > with autogroup enabled. There is no clear performance change. > But since the machine just run benchmark without anyother load, that > doesn't enough. Back when we started with smp-fair cgroup muck someone wrote a test for it. I _think_ it ended up in the LTP test-suite. Now I don't know if that's up-to-date enough to catch some of the cases we've recently fixed (as in the past few years) so it might want to be updated. Paul, do you guys at Google have some nice test-cases for all this? -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:35:25PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: I tested all benchmarks on cover letter maintained, aim7, kbuild etc. with autogroup enabled. There is no clear performance change. But since the machine just run benchmark without anyother load, that doesn't enough. Back when we started with smp-fair cgroup muck someone wrote a test for it. I _think_ it ended up in the LTP test-suite. Now I don't know if that's up-to-date enough to catch some of the cases we've recently fixed (as in the past few years) so it might want to be updated. Paul, do you guys at Google have some nice test-cases for all this? -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On 05/14/2013 05:05 PM, Paul Turner wrote: >> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> > index 91e60ac..75c200c 100644 >> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c >> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> > @@ -1339,7 +1339,7 @@ static inline void >> > __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, >> > struct task_group *tg = cfs_rq->tg; >> > s64 tg_contrib; >> > >> > - tg_contrib = cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg; > Nack -- This is necessary for correct shares distribution. I was going to set this patch as RFC. :) BTW, did you do some test of this part? -- Thanks Alex -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On 05/14/2013 04:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:17:29PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> > blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load >> > avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it. > Would you happen to have an example around that illustrates this? Sorry, No. > > Also, you've just changed the cgroup balancing -- did you run any tests on > that? > I tested all benchmarks on cover letter maintained, aim7, kbuild etc. with autogroup enabled. There is no clear performance change. But since the machine just run benchmark without anyother load, that doesn't enough. -- Thanks Alex -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load
> avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c |2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 91e60ac..75c200c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -1339,7 +1339,7 @@ static inline void
> __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> struct task_group *tg = cfs_rq->tg;
> s64 tg_contrib;
>
> - tg_contrib = cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg;
Nack -- This is necessary for correct shares distribution.
T
> + tg_contrib = cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg;
> tg_contrib -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
>
> if (force_update || abs64(tg_contrib) > cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib / 8) {
> --
> 1.7.5.4
>
--
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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:17:29PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load
> avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it.
Would you happen to have an example around that illustrates this?
Also, you've just changed the cgroup balancing -- did you run any tests on that?
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c |2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 91e60ac..75c200c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -1339,7 +1339,7 @@ static inline void
> __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> struct task_group *tg = cfs_rq->tg;
> s64 tg_contrib;
>
> - tg_contrib = cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg;
> + tg_contrib = cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg;
> tg_contrib -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
>
> if (force_update || abs64(tg_contrib) > cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib / 8) {
> --
> 1.7.5.4
>
--
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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:17:29PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load
avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it.
Would you happen to have an example around that illustrates this?
Also, you've just changed the cgroup balancing -- did you run any tests on that?
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi alex@intel.com
---
kernel/sched/fair.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 91e60ac..75c200c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1339,7 +1339,7 @@ static inline void
__update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
struct task_group *tg = cfs_rq-tg;
s64 tg_contrib;
- tg_contrib = cfs_rq-runnable_load_avg + cfs_rq-blocked_load_avg;
+ tg_contrib = cfs_rq-runnable_load_avg;
tg_contrib -= cfs_rq-tg_load_contrib;
if (force_update || abs64(tg_contrib) cfs_rq-tg_load_contrib / 8) {
--
1.7.5.4
--
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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load
avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi alex@intel.com
---
kernel/sched/fair.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 91e60ac..75c200c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1339,7 +1339,7 @@ static inline void
__update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
struct task_group *tg = cfs_rq-tg;
s64 tg_contrib;
- tg_contrib = cfs_rq-runnable_load_avg + cfs_rq-blocked_load_avg;
Nack -- This is necessary for correct shares distribution.
T
+ tg_contrib = cfs_rq-runnable_load_avg;
tg_contrib -= cfs_rq-tg_load_contrib;
if (force_update || abs64(tg_contrib) cfs_rq-tg_load_contrib / 8) {
--
1.7.5.4
--
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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On 05/14/2013 04:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:17:29PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it. Would you happen to have an example around that illustrates this? Sorry, No. Also, you've just changed the cgroup balancing -- did you run any tests on that? I tested all benchmarks on cover letter maintained, aim7, kbuild etc. with autogroup enabled. There is no clear performance change. But since the machine just run benchmark without anyother load, that doesn't enough. -- Thanks Alex -- 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/
Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
On 05/14/2013 05:05 PM, Paul Turner wrote: diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index 91e60ac..75c200c 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -1339,7 +1339,7 @@ static inline void __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct task_group *tg = cfs_rq-tg; s64 tg_contrib; - tg_contrib = cfs_rq-runnable_load_avg + cfs_rq-blocked_load_avg; Nack -- This is necessary for correct shares distribution. I was going to set this patch as RFC. :) BTW, did you do some test of this part? -- Thanks Alex -- 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/
[patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load
avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
---
kernel/sched/fair.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 91e60ac..75c200c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1339,7 +1339,7 @@ static inline void __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(struct
cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
struct task_group *tg = cfs_rq->tg;
s64 tg_contrib;
- tg_contrib = cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg;
+ tg_contrib = cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg;
tg_contrib -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
if (force_update || abs64(tg_contrib) > cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib / 8) {
--
1.7.5.4
--
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/
[patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg
blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load
avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi alex@intel.com
---
kernel/sched/fair.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 91e60ac..75c200c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1339,7 +1339,7 @@ static inline void __update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(struct
cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
struct task_group *tg = cfs_rq-tg;
s64 tg_contrib;
- tg_contrib = cfs_rq-runnable_load_avg + cfs_rq-blocked_load_avg;
+ tg_contrib = cfs_rq-runnable_load_avg;
tg_contrib -= cfs_rq-tg_load_contrib;
if (force_update || abs64(tg_contrib) cfs_rq-tg_load_contrib / 8) {
--
1.7.5.4
--
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/
