On 01/21/2013 10:40 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> Thank you very much for running the below benchmark on
> blocked_load+runnable_load:) Just a few queries.
>
> How did you do the wake up balancing? Did you iterate over the L3
> package looking for an idle cpu? Or did you just query the L2 package
> for an idle cpu?
>
Just used the current select_idle_sibling function, so it search in L3
package.
> I think when you are using blocked_load+runnable_load it would be better
> if we just query the L2 package as Vincent had pointed out because the
> fundamental behind using blocked_load+runnable_load is to keep a steady
> state across cpus unless we could reap the advantage of moving the
> blocked load to a sibling core when it wakes up.
>
> And the drop of performance is relative to what?
it is 2 VS 3.8-rc3
> 1.Your v3 patchset with runnable_load_avg in weighted_cpu_load().
> 2.Your v3 patchset with runnable_load_avg+blocked_load_avg in
> weighted_cpu_load().
>
> Are the above two what you are comparing? And in the above two versions
> have you included your [PATCH] sched: use instant load weight in burst
> regular load balance?
no this patch.
>
> On 01/20/2013 09:22 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>>>>> The blocked load of a cluster will be high if the blocked tasks have
>>>>> run recently. The contribution of a blocked task will be divided by 2
>>>>> each 32ms, so it means that a high blocked load will be made of recent
>>>>> running tasks and the long sleeping tasks will not influence the load
>>>>> balancing.
>>>>> The load balance period is between 1 tick (10ms for idle load balance
>>>>> on ARM) and up to 256 ms (for busy load balance) so a high blocked
>>>>> load should imply some tasks that have run recently otherwise your
>>>>> blocked load will be small and will not have a large influence on your
>>>>> load balance
>>>
>>> Just tried using cfs's runnable_load_avg + blocked_load_avg in
>>> weighted_cpuload() with my v3 patchset, aim9 shared workfile testing
>>> show the performance dropped 70% more on the NHM EP machine. :(
>>>
>>
>> Ops, the performance is still worse than just count runnable_load_avg.
>> But dropping is not so big, it dropped 30%, not 70%.
>>
>
> Thank you
>
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
>
--
Thanks
Alex
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
