Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Aggressive balance in domains whose groups share package resources
From: Preeti U Murthy <hidden>
Date: 2013-10-24 04:07:18
Also in:
lkml
Hi Peter, On 10/23/2013 03:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 05:15:02PM +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:quoted
kernel/sched/fair.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index 828ed97..bbcd96b 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c@@ -5165,6 +5165,8 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq, { int ld_moved, cur_ld_moved, active_balance = 0; struct sched_group *group; + struct sched_domain *child; + int share_pkg_res = 0; struct rq *busiest; unsigned long flags; struct cpumask *cpus = __get_cpu_var(load_balance_mask);@@ -5190,6 +5192,10 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq, schedstat_inc(sd, lb_count[idle]); + child = sd->child; + if (child && child->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) + share_pkg_res = 1; + redo: if (!should_we_balance(&env)) { *continue_balancing = 0;@@ -5202,6 +5208,7 @@ redo: goto out_balanced; } +redo_grp: busiest = find_busiest_queue(&env, group); if (!busiest) { schedstat_inc(sd, lb_nobusyq[idle]);@@ -5292,6 +5299,11 @@ more_balance: if (!cpumask_empty(cpus)) { env.loop = 0; env.loop_break = sched_nr_migrate_break; + if (share_pkg_res && + cpumask_intersects(cpus, + to_cpumask(group->cpumask)))sched_group_cpus()quoted
+ goto redo_grp; + goto redo; } goto out_balanced;@@ -5318,9 +5330,15 @@ more_balance: */ if (!cpumask_test_cpu(this_cpu, tsk_cpus_allowed(busiest->curr))) { + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu_of(busiest), cpus); raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&busiest->lock, flags); env.flags |= LBF_ALL_PINNED; + if (share_pkg_res && + cpumask_intersects(cpus, + to_cpumask(group->cpumask))) + goto redo_grp; + goto out_one_pinned; }Man this retry logic is getting annoying.. isn't there anything saner we can do?
Let me give this a thought and get back. Regards Preeti U Murthy