On 15 December 2011 11:08, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijls...@chello.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 20:21 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> With a lot of small tasks, the softirq sched is nearly never called
>> when no_hz is enable. In this case the load_balance is mainly called with
>> the newly_idle mode which doesn't update the cpu_power.
>> Add a next_update field which ensure a maximum update period when
>> there is short activity
>
>> + if (local_group) {
>> + if (idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE) {
>> + if (balance_cpu != this_cpu) {
>> + *balance = 0;
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + update_group_power(sd, this_cpu);
>> + } else if (time_after_eq(jiffies, group->sgp->next_update))
>> + update_group_power(sd, this_cpu);
>> }
>
> Hmm, I would have expected it to be called from the NOHZ balancing path
> instead of the new_idle path. Your changelog fails to mentions any
> considerations on this..
>
As we are not lucky, the small tasks are mainly running between ticks
and the timer interrupt doesn't fire which implies that both
rebalance_domain of the cpu and nohz_balancer_kick are not called. We
have a lot of call to idle_balance() when cpus become idle and very
few calls to rebalance or nohz_idle_balance. If some tasks are rt
tasks, the cpu_power should be updated regularly to reflect current
use of the cpu by rt scheduler.
I'm using cyclictest to easily reproduce the problem on my dual cortex-A9
> Then again, its probably easier to keep update_group_power on this_cpu
> than to allow a remote update of your cpu_power.
>
This additional path for updating the cpu_power will only be used by
this_cpu because it is called by idle_balance. But we still have a
call to update_group_power by a remote cpu when nohz_idle_balance is
called.
> So I'm not opposed to this patch, I'd just like a little extra
> clarification.
Vincent
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
