Re: [patch] sched: improve pinned task handling again!

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Siddha, Suresh B wrote:

> This time Ken Chen brought up this issue -- No it has nothing to do with 
> industry db benchmark ;-) 
>
> Even with the above mentioned Nick's patch in -mm, I see system livelock's 
> if for example I have 7000 processes pinned onto one cpu (this is on the 
> fastest 8-way system I have access to). I am sure there will be other 
> systems where this problem can be encountered even with lesser pin count.

Thanks for testing these patches in -mm, by the way.

> We tried to fix this issue but as you know there is no good mechanism
> in fixing this issue with out letting the regular paths know about this.
>
> Our proposed solution is appended and we tried to minimize the affect on 
> fast path.  It builds up on Nick's patch and once this situation is detected,
> it will not do any more move_tasks as long as busiest cpu is always the 
> same cpu and the queued processes on busiest_cpu, their
> cpu affinity remain same(found out by runqueue's "generation_num")

7000 running processes pinned into one CPU. I guess that isn't a
great deal :(

How important is this? Any application to real workloads? Even if
not, I agree it would be nice to improve this more. I don't know
if I really like this approach - I guess due to what it adds to
fastpaths.

Now presumably if the all_pinned logic is working properly in the
first place, and it is correctly causing balancing to back-off, you
could tweak that a bit to avoid livelocks? Perhaps the all_pinned
case should back off faster than the usual doubling of the interval,
and be allowed to exceed max_interval?

Any thoughts Ingo?

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/