On 06/24/2013 11:37 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 06/24/2013 06:40 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
>>>> Ingo & Peter,
>>>>
>>>> This patchset was discussed spread and deeply.
>>>>
>>>> Now just 6th/8th patch has some arguments on them, Paul think it is
>>>> better to consider blocked_load_avg in balance, since it is helpful on
>>>> some scenarios, but I think on most of scenarios, the blocked_load_avg
>>>> just cause load imbalance among cpus. and plus testing show with
>>>> blocked_load_avg the performance is just worse on some benchmarks. So, I
>>>> still prefer to keep it out of balance.
>> I think you have perhaps misunderstood what I was trying to explain.
>>
>> I have no problems with not including blocked load in load-balance, in
>> fact, I encouraged not accumulating it in an average of averages in
>> CPU load.
>>
>
> Many thanks for re-clarification!
>> The problem is that your current approach has removed it both from
>> load-balance _and_ from shares distribution; isolation matters as much
>> as performance in the cgroup case (otherwise you would just not use
>> cgroups). I would expect the latter to have quite negative effects on
>> fairness, this is my primary concern.
>>
>
> So the argument is just on patch 'sched/tg: remove blocked_load_avg in
> balance'. :)
>
> I understand your correctness concern. but blocked_load_avg still will be
> decayed to zero in few hundreds ms. So such correctness needs just in few
> hundreds ms. (and cause performance drop)
> The blocked_load_avg is decayed on same degree as runnable load, it is a bit
> overweight since task slept. since it may will be waken up on other cpu. So
> to relieve this overweight, could we use the half or a quarter weight of
> blocked_load_avg? like following:
>
Ping to Paul!
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index ddbc19f..395f57c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -1358,7 +1358,7 @@ 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 + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg / 2;
> tg_contrib -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
>
> if (force_update || abs64(tg_contrib) > cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib / 8) {
>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg455196.html
>>>>
>>>> Is it the time to do the decision or give more comments? Thanks!
>
>
--
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/
