Hi Vincent,
On Mon, Nov 20 2017 at 09:04, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 24 October 2017 at 14:25, Brendan Jackman wrote:
>> @@ -9062,7 +9109,12 @@ static __latent_entropy void
>> run_rebalance_domains(struct softirq_action *h)
>> * and abort nohz_idle_balance altogether if we pull some lo
On 24 October 2017 at 14:25, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> From: Vincent Guittot
>
> When idle, the blocked load of CPUs will be updated only when an idle
> load balance is triggered which may never happen. Because of this
> uncertainty on the execution of idle load balance, the utilization,
> the loa
Hi Todd,
On Thu, Nov 09 2017 at 19:56, Todd Kjos wrote:
>> @@ -8683,6 +8692,10 @@ static void nohz_balancer_kick(void)
>>
>> if (test_and_set_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu)))
>> return;
>> +
>> + if (only_update)
>> + set_bit(NOHZ_STATS_KICK
> @@ -8683,6 +8692,10 @@ static void nohz_balancer_kick(void)
>
> if (test_and_set_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu)))
> return;
> +
> + if (only_update)
> + set_bit(NOHZ_STATS_KICK, nohz_flags(ilb_cpu));
Should there be an "else clear_bit(NOHZ_
From: Vincent Guittot
When idle, the blocked load of CPUs will be updated only when an idle
load balance is triggered which may never happen. Because of this
uncertainty on the execution of idle load balance, the utilization,
the load and the shares of idle cfs_rq can stay artificially high and
s
5 matches
Mail list logo