iv/linux
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

sched/fair: Don't increase sd->balance_interval on newidle balance

Browse Source 
[ Upstream commit 3f130a37c442d5c4d66531b240ebe9abfef426b5 ]

When load_balance() fails to move some load because of task affinity,
we end up increasing sd->balance_interval to delay the next periodic
balance in the hopes that next time we look, that annoying pinned
task(s) will be gone.

However, idle_balance() pays no attention to sd->balance_interval, yet
it will still lead to an increase in balance_interval in case of
pinned tasks.

If we're going through several newidle balances (e.g. we have a
periodic task), this can lead to a huge increase of the
balance_interval in a very small amount of time.

To prevent that, don't increase the balance interval when going
through a newidle balance.

This is a similar approach to what is done in commit 58b26c4c0257
("sched: Increment cache_nice_tries only on periodic lb"), where we
disregard newidle balance and rely on periodic balance for more stable
results.

Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com
Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1537974727-30788-2-git-send-email-valentin.schneider@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
Valentin Schneider 2018-09-26 16:12:07 +01:00 committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman
parent f4e7ca091d
commit e1f78c15ae
1 changed files with 11 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

13
kernel/sched/fair.c
View File

@ -7950,13 +7950,22 @@ out_all_pinned:
sd->nr_balance_failed = 0;
out_one_pinned:
ld_moved = 0;
/*
* idle_balance() disregards balance intervals, so we could repeatedly
* reach this code, which would lead to balance_interval skyrocketting
* in a short amount of time. Skip the balance_interval increase logic
* to avoid that.
*/
if (env.idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
goto out;
/* tune up the balancing interval */
if (((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED) &&
sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
(sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval))
sd->balance_interval *= 2;
ld_moved = 0;
out:
return ld_moved;
}