Re: [patch 2/2] sched: reduce locking in periodic balancing

[Ingo Molnar]

* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> During periodic load balancing, don't hold this runqueue's lock while
> scanning remote runqueues, which can take a non trivial amount of time
> especially on very large systems.
> 
> Holding the runqueue lock will only help to stabalise ->nr_running,

s/stabalise/stabilise/

> however this isn't doesn't do much to help because tasks being woken 

s/isn't //

> will simply get held up on the runqueue lock, so ->nr_running would 
> not provide a really accurate picture of runqueue load in that case 
> anyway.
> 
> What's more, ->nr_running (and possibly the cpu_load averages) of
> remote runqueues won't be stable anyway, so load balancing is always
> an inexact operation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>

btw., holding the runqueue lock during the initial scanning portion of 
load-balancing is one of the top PREEMPT_RT critical paths on SMP. (It's 
not bad, but it's one of the factors that makes SMP latencies higher.)

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>

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