Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Avoid select_idle_sibling() forwake_affine(.sync=true)

[Mike Galbraith]

On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 07:34 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: 
> On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 13:12 +0800, Michael wang wrote: 
> > On 09/26/2013 11:41 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >> Like the case when we have:
> > >>
> > >> 	core0 sg		core1 sg
> > >> 	cpu0	cpu1		cpu2	cpu3
> > >> 	waker	busy		idle	idle
> > >>
> > >> If the sync wakeup was on cpu0, we can:
> > >>
> > >> 1. choose cpu in core1 sg like we did usually
> > >>    some overhead but tend to make the load a little balance
> > >> 	core0 sg		core1 sg
> > >> 	cpu0	cpu1		cpu2	cpu3
> > >> 	idle	busy		wakee	idle
> > > 
> > > Reducing latency and increasing throughput when the waker isn't really
> > > really going to immediately schedule off as the hint implies.  Nice for
> > > bursty loads and ramp.
> > > 
> > > The breakeven point is going up though.  If you don't have nohz
> > > throttled, you eat tick start/stop overhead, and the menu governor
> > > recently added yet more overhead, so maybe we should say hell with it.
> > 
> > Exactly, more and more factors to be considered, we say things get
> > balanced but actually it's not the best choice...
> > 
> > > 
> > >> 2. choose cpu0 like the patch proposed
> > >>    no overhead but tend to make the load a little more unbalance
> > >> 	core0 sg		core1 sg
> > >> 	cpu0	cpu1		cpu2	cpu3
> > >> 	wakee	busy		idle	idle
> > >>
> > >> May be we should add a higher scope load balance check in wake_affine(),
> > >> but that means higher overhead which is just what the patch want to
> > >> reduce...
> > > 
> > > Yeah, more overhead is the last thing we need.
> > > 
> > >> What about some discount for sync case inside select_idle_sibling()?
> > >> For example we consider sync cpu as idle and prefer it more than the others?
> > > 
> > > That's what the sync hint does.  Problem is, it's a hint.  If it were
> > > truth, there would be no point in calling select_idle_sibling().
> > 
> > Just wondering if the hint was wrong in most of the time, then why don't
> > we remove it...
> 
> For very fast/light network ping-pong micro-benchmarks, it is right.
> For pipe-test, it's absolutely right, jabbering parties are 100%
> synchronous, there is nada/nil/zip/diddly squat overlap reclaimable..
> but in the real world, it ain't necessarily so.
> 
> > Otherwise I think we can still utilize it to make some decision tends to
> > be correct, don't we?
> 
> Sometimes :)

P.S.  while we're slapping select_idle_sibling()'s _evil_ face, let's
give it a pat on the head too.  It showed regressions in bright red.
Put pipe-test on one core, you only see scheduler weight.. but entering
and exiting idle is part of the fast path, whether you're exercising it
by doing something silly or not.

-Mike

--
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/