Peter Williams wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Peter Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't think either of these issues warrant abandoning smpnice. The
first is highly unlikely to occur on real systems and the second is
just an example of the patch doing its job (maybe too officiously).
I don't think users would notice either on real systems.
Even if you pull it from 2.6.16 rather than upgrading it with my
patch can you please leave both in -mm?
Yes, I have done that. I currently have:
sched-restore-smpnice.patch
sched-modified-nice-support-for-smp-load-balancing.patch
sched-cleanup_task_activated.patch
sched-alter_uninterruptible_sleep_interactivity.patch
sched-make_task_noninteractive_use_sleep_type.patch
sched-dont_decrease_idle_sleep_avg.patch
sched-include_noninteractive_sleep_in_idle_detect.patch
sched-new-sched-domain-for-representing-multi-core.patch
sched-fix-group-power-for-allnodes_domains.patch
OK. Having slept on these problems I am now of the opinion that the
problems are caused by the use of NICE_TO_BIAS_PRIO(0) to set *imbalance
inside the (*imbalance < SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) if statement in
find_busiest_group(). What is happening here is that even though the
imbalance is less than one (average) task sometimes the decision is made
to move a task anyway but with the current version this decision can be
subverted in two ways: 1) if the task to be moved has a nice value less
than zero the value of *imbalance that is set will be too small for
move_tasks() to move it; and 2) if there are a number of tasks with nice
values greater than zero on the "busiest" more than one of them may be
moved as the value of *imbalance that is set may be big enough to
include more than one of these tasks.
The fix for this problem is to replace NICE_TO_BIAS_PRIO(0) with the
"average bias prio per runnable task" on "busiest". This will
(generally) result in a larger value for *imbalance in case 1. above and
a smaller one in case 2. and alleviate both problems. A patch to apply
this fix is attached.
Signed-off-by: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
Could you please add this patch to -mm so that it can be tested?
Thanks
Peter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index: MM-2.6.X/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- MM-2.6.X.orig/kernel/sched.c 2006-02-12 11:24:48.000000000 +1100
+++ MM-2.6.X/kernel/sched.c 2006-02-12 11:35:40.000000000 +1100
@@ -735,6 +735,19 @@ static inline unsigned long biased_load(
{
return (wload * NICE_TO_BIAS_PRIO(0)) / SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
}
+
+/* get the average biased load per runnable task for a run queue */
+static inline unsigned long avg_biased_load(runqueue_t *rq)
+{
+ /*
+ * When I'm convinced that this won't be called with a zero nr_running
+ * and that it can't change during the call this can be simplified.
+ * For the time being and for proof of concept let's paly it safe.
+ */
+ unsigned long n = rq->nr_running;
+
+ return n ? rq->prio_bias / n : 0;
+}
#else
static inline void set_bias_prio(task_t *p)
{
@@ -2116,7 +2129,7 @@ find_busiest_group(struct sched_domain *
unsigned long tmp;
if (max_load - this_load >= SCHED_LOAD_SCALE*2) {
- *imbalance = NICE_TO_BIAS_PRIO(0);
+ *imbalance = avg_biased_load(busiest);
return busiest;
}
@@ -2149,7 +2162,7 @@ find_busiest_group(struct sched_domain *
if (pwr_move <= pwr_now)
goto out_balanced;
- *imbalance = NICE_TO_BIAS_PRIO(0);
+ *imbalance = avg_biased_load(busiest);
return busiest;
}
Can we pull this one, please? I've mistakenly assumed that busiest was
a run queue when it's actually a sched group. :-(
Peter
--
Peter Williams [email protected]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]