Re: [patch 4/4] sched: Distangle worker accounting from rq->lock

[Ingo Molnar]

* Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello, Ingo.
> 
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > * Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> The patch description is simply untrue.  It does affect how wq
> >> behaves under heavy CPU load.  The effect might be perfectly okay
> >> but more likely it will result in subtle suboptimal behaviors under
> >> certain load situations which would be difficult to characterize
> >> and track down.  Again, the trade off (mostly killing of
> >> ttwu_local) could be okay but you can't get away with just claiming
> >> "there's no harm".
> >
> > Well, either it can be measured or not. If you can suggest a specific
> > testing method to Thomas, please do.
> 
> Crafting a test case where the suggested change results in worse 
> behavior isn't difficult (it ends up waking/creating workers which 
> it doesn't have to between ttwu and actual execution); however, as 
> with any micro benchmark, the problem is with assessing whether and 
> how much it would matter in actual workloads (whatever that means) 
> and workqueue is used throughout the kernel with widely varying 
> patterns making drawing conclusion a bit tricky. [...]

Well, please suggest a workload where it *matters* - as i suspect any 
workload tglx will come up with will have another 90% of workloads 
that you could suggest: so it's much better if you suggest a testing 
method.

When someone comes to me with a scheduler change i can give them the 
workloads that they should double check. See the changelog of this 
recent commit for example:

  c8b281161dfa: sched: Increase SCHED_LOAD_SCALE resolution

So please suggest a testing method.

> [...] Given that, changing the behavior for the worse just for this 
> cleanup doesn't sound like too sweet a deal.  Is there any other 
> reason to change the behavior (latency, whatever) other than the 
> ttuw_local ugliness?

Well, the ugliness is one aspect of it, but my main concern is simply 
testability: any claim of speedup or slowdown ought to be testable, 
right? I mean, we'd like to drive people towards coming with patches 
and number like Nikhil Rao did in c8b281161dfa, right?

Thanks,

	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/