Re: [RFC] sched: The removal of idle_balance()

[Mike Galbraith]

On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 13:21 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: 
> On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 08:26 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 
> > (the throttle is supposed to keep idle_balance() from doing severe
> > damage, that may want a peek/tweak)
> 
> Right, as it stands idle_balance() can do a lot of work and if the avg
> idle time is less than the time we spend looking for a suitable task we
> loose.
> 
> I've wanted to make this smarter by having the cpufreq/cpuidle avg idle
> time guestimator in the scheduler core so we actually know how log we
> expect to be idle and couple that with a cache refresh cost per sched
> domain (something we used to have pre 2.6.21 or so) so we can auto-limit
> the domain traversal for idle_balance.
> 
> So far that's all fantasy though..
> 
> Related, I wanted to use the idle time guestimate to 'optimize' the idle
> loop, currently that stuff is stupid expensive and pokes at timer
> hardware etc.. if we know we won't be idle longer than it takes to poke
> at timer hardware, don't go into nohz mode etc.

Yup.  My trees have nohz throttled too, it's too expensive for fast
switchers scheduling cross core.

-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/