forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
sched: Use group weight, idle cpu metrics to fix imbalances during idle
Currently we consider a sched domain to be well balanced when the imbalance is less than the domain's imablance_pct. As the number of cores and threads are increasing, current values of imbalance_pct (for example 25% for a NUMA domain) are not enough to detect imbalances like: a) On a WSM-EP system (two sockets, each having 6 cores and 12 logical threads), 24 cpu-hogging tasks get scheduled as 13 on one socket and 11 on another socket. Leading to an idle HT cpu. b) On a hypothetial 2 socket NHM-EX system (each socket having 8 cores and 16 logical threads), 16 cpu-hogging tasks can get scheduled as 9 on one socket and 7 on another socket. Leaving one core in a socket idle whereas in another socket we have a core having both its HT siblings busy. While this issue can be fixed by decreasing the domain's imbalance_pct (by making it a function of number of logical cpus in the domain), it can potentially cause more task migrations across sched groups in an overloaded case. Fix this by using imbalance_pct only during newly_idle and busy load balancing. And during idle load balancing, check if there is an imbalance in number of idle cpu's across the busiest and this sched_group or if the busiest group has more tasks than its weight that the idle cpu in this_group can pull. Reported-by: Nikhil Rao <ncrao@google.com> Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> LKML-Reference: <1284760952.2676.11.camel@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
parent
f6614b7bb4
commit
aae6d3ddd8
@ -862,6 +862,7 @@ struct sched_group {
|
||||
* single CPU.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
unsigned int cpu_power, cpu_power_orig;
|
||||
unsigned int group_weight;
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* The CPUs this group covers.
|
||||
|
@ -6960,6 +6960,8 @@ static void init_sched_groups_power(int cpu, struct sched_domain *sd)
|
||||
if (cpu != group_first_cpu(sd->groups))
|
||||
return;
|
||||
|
||||
sd->groups->group_weight = cpumask_weight(sched_group_cpus(sd->groups));
|
||||
|
||||
child = sd->child;
|
||||
|
||||
sd->groups->cpu_power = 0;
|
||||
|
@ -2035,13 +2035,16 @@ struct sd_lb_stats {
|
||||
unsigned long this_load_per_task;
|
||||
unsigned long this_nr_running;
|
||||
unsigned long this_has_capacity;
|
||||
unsigned int this_idle_cpus;
|
||||
|
||||
/* Statistics of the busiest group */
|
||||
unsigned int busiest_idle_cpus;
|
||||
unsigned long max_load;
|
||||
unsigned long busiest_load_per_task;
|
||||
unsigned long busiest_nr_running;
|
||||
unsigned long busiest_group_capacity;
|
||||
unsigned long busiest_has_capacity;
|
||||
unsigned int busiest_group_weight;
|
||||
|
||||
int group_imb; /* Is there imbalance in this sd */
|
||||
#if defined(CONFIG_SCHED_MC) || defined(CONFIG_SCHED_SMT)
|
||||
@ -2063,6 +2066,8 @@ struct sg_lb_stats {
|
||||
unsigned long sum_nr_running; /* Nr tasks running in the group */
|
||||
unsigned long sum_weighted_load; /* Weighted load of group's tasks */
|
||||
unsigned long group_capacity;
|
||||
unsigned long idle_cpus;
|
||||
unsigned long group_weight;
|
||||
int group_imb; /* Is there an imbalance in the group ? */
|
||||
int group_has_capacity; /* Is there extra capacity in the group? */
|
||||
};
|
||||
@ -2431,7 +2436,8 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct sched_domain *sd,
|
||||
sgs->group_load += load;
|
||||
sgs->sum_nr_running += rq->nr_running;
|
||||
sgs->sum_weighted_load += weighted_cpuload(i);
|
||||
|
||||
if (idle_cpu(i))
|
||||
sgs->idle_cpus++;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
@ -2469,6 +2475,7 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct sched_domain *sd,
|
||||
sgs->group_capacity = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(group->cpu_power, SCHED_LOAD_SCALE);
|
||||
if (!sgs->group_capacity)
|
||||
sgs->group_capacity = fix_small_capacity(sd, group);
|
||||
sgs->group_weight = group->group_weight;
|
||||
|
||||
if (sgs->group_capacity > sgs->sum_nr_running)
|
||||
sgs->group_has_capacity = 1;
|
||||
@ -2576,13 +2583,16 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct sched_domain *sd, int this_cpu,
|
||||
sds->this_nr_running = sgs.sum_nr_running;
|
||||
sds->this_load_per_task = sgs.sum_weighted_load;
|
||||
sds->this_has_capacity = sgs.group_has_capacity;
|
||||
sds->this_idle_cpus = sgs.idle_cpus;
|
||||
} else if (update_sd_pick_busiest(sd, sds, sg, &sgs, this_cpu)) {
|
||||
sds->max_load = sgs.avg_load;
|
||||
sds->busiest = sg;
|
||||
sds->busiest_nr_running = sgs.sum_nr_running;
|
||||
sds->busiest_idle_cpus = sgs.idle_cpus;
|
||||
sds->busiest_group_capacity = sgs.group_capacity;
|
||||
sds->busiest_load_per_task = sgs.sum_weighted_load;
|
||||
sds->busiest_has_capacity = sgs.group_has_capacity;
|
||||
sds->busiest_group_weight = sgs.group_weight;
|
||||
sds->group_imb = sgs.group_imb;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -2860,8 +2870,26 @@ find_busiest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, int this_cpu,
|
||||
if (sds.this_load >= sds.avg_load)
|
||||
goto out_balanced;
|
||||
|
||||
if (100 * sds.max_load <= sd->imbalance_pct * sds.this_load)
|
||||
goto out_balanced;
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* In the CPU_NEWLY_IDLE, use imbalance_pct to be conservative.
|
||||
* And to check for busy balance use !idle_cpu instead of
|
||||
* CPU_NOT_IDLE. This is because HT siblings will use CPU_NOT_IDLE
|
||||
* even when they are idle.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE || !idle_cpu(this_cpu)) {
|
||||
if (100 * sds.max_load <= sd->imbalance_pct * sds.this_load)
|
||||
goto out_balanced;
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* This cpu is idle. If the busiest group load doesn't
|
||||
* have more tasks than the number of available cpu's and
|
||||
* there is no imbalance between this and busiest group
|
||||
* wrt to idle cpu's, it is balanced.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if ((sds.this_idle_cpus <= sds.busiest_idle_cpus + 1) &&
|
||||
sds.busiest_nr_running <= sds.busiest_group_weight)
|
||||
goto out_balanced;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
force_balance:
|
||||
/* Looks like there is an imbalance. Compute it */
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user