On 05/07/2013 01:43 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> > This also brings forth another question,should we modify wake_affine()
>> > to pass the runnable load average of the waking up task to
>> > effective_load().
>> >
>> > What do you think?
> I am not Paul. :)
>
> The acceptable patch of pgbench attached
On 05/06/2013 05:59 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Suggestion1: Would change the CPU share calculation to use runnable load
> average all the time.
>
> Suggestion2: Did opposite of point 2 above,it used runnable load average
> while calculating the CPU share *before* a new task has been woken up
> w
On 05/06/2013 05:59 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 03:05 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 05/06/2013 05:06 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
>>> I don't think this is a good idea:
>>>
>>> The problem with not using the instantaneous weight here is that you
>>> potentially penalize the latency of interact
On 05/06/2013 03:05 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 05:06 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
>> I don't think this is a good idea:
>>
>> The problem with not using the instantaneous weight here is that you
>> potentially penalize the latency of interactive tasks (similarly,
>> potentially important backgro
Hi Alex,Michael,
Can you try out the below patch and check? I have the reason mentioned in the
changelog.
If this also causes performance regression,you probably need to remove changes
made in
effective_load() as Michael points out. I believe the below patch should not
cause
performance regre
Hi, Preeti
On 05/06/2013 03:10 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Alex,Michael,
>
> Can you try out the below patch and check?
Sure, I will take a try also.
I have the reason mentioned in the changelog.
> If this also causes performance regression,you probably need to remove
> changes made in
>
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 05:06 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
>> I don't think this is a good idea:
>>
>> The problem with not using the instantaneous weight here is that you
>> potentially penalize the latency of interactive tasks (similarly,
>> potentially importan
>
> But actually I'm wondering whether it is necessary to change
> effective_load()?
>
> It is only severed for wake-affine and the whole stuff is still in the
> dark, if patch 1~6 already show good results, why don't we leave it there?
It is used for pipe connected process, and your testing sho
On 05/06/2013 05:06 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
> I don't think this is a good idea:
>
> The problem with not using the instantaneous weight here is that you
> potentially penalize the latency of interactive tasks (similarly,
> potentially important background threads -- e.g. garbage collection).
>
>
On 05/06/2013 01:39 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 11:34 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
@@ -3045,7 +3045,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg,
int cpu, long wl, long wg)
/*
* w = rw_i + @wl
*/
- w = se->my_q->
I don't think this is a good idea:
The problem with not using the instantaneous weight here is that you
potentially penalize the latency of interactive tasks (similarly,
potentially important background threads -- e.g. garbage collection).
Counter-intuitively we actually want such tasks on the le
On 05/06/2013 04:02 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 03:49 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 05/06/2013 01:39 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Rough test done:
>>
>>>
>>> 1, change back the tg_weight in calc_tg_weight() to use tg_load_contrib not
>>> direct load.
>>
>> This way stop the regressi
On 05/06/2013 03:49 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 01:39 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Rough test done:
>
>>
>> 1, change back the tg_weight in calc_tg_weight() to use tg_load_contrib not
>> direct load.
>
> This way stop the regression of patch 7.
>
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched
On 05/06/2013 01:39 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
[snip]
Rough test done:
>
> 1, change back the tg_weight in calc_tg_weight() to use tg_load_contrib not
> direct load.
This way stop the regression of patch 7.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 6f4f14b..c770f8d 100644
>
On 05/06/2013 11:34 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> > @@ -3045,7 +3045,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg,
>> > int cpu, long wl, long wg)
>> >/*
>> > * w = rw_i + @wl
>> > */
>> > - w = se->my_q->load.weight + wl;
>> > + w = se->
Hi, Alex
On 05/06/2013 09:45 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> effective_load calculates the load change as seen from the
> root_task_group. It needs to engage the runnable average
> of changed task.
[snip]
> */
> @@ -3045,7 +3045,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg, int
> cpu, long wl, l
effective_load calculates the load change as seen from the
root_task_group. It needs to engage the runnable average
of changed task.
Thanks for Morten Rasmussen and PeterZ's reminder of this.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 24
1 file changed, 12 inser
17 matches
Mail list logo
