[PATCH 3/3] sched: Aggressive balance in domains whose groups share package resources
Preeti U Murthy
preeti at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Thu Oct 24 15:04:08 EST 2013
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:
>> 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()
>
>> + 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
>
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list