Paul Jackson wrote:
quoted text
> Hidetoshi wrote:
>> Put simply, if the system tend to be idle, then "push to idle" strategy
>> works well.  OTOH if the system tend to be busy, then "pull by idle"
>> strategy works well.  Else, both strategy will work but besides of all
>> there is a question: how much searching cost can you pay?
> 
> So each flag has value in some cases ... that much seems reasonable to me.
> 
> But you're saying that you'd like to avoid having to turn on both, just to
> get the benefit of one of them, in order to avoid the searching costs of
> the other flag that was not valuable on that load, right?
> 
> But is this necessarily so?

I'd like to turn on both(since I know it is best for my application/system),
but it can't be denied that there are other situations loving only one of
them...  At least there is a small possible conflict:
   "Are you idle?" - "No, I'm busy to search a busy CPU!"

To be honest, I don't have strong reason to have them to be divided.
Just I thought that they could work independently and it might be usable
interface for other people.
(... well, I would be a little happy if I don't need to rewrite almost all
  of the additional piece of Documentation/cpuset.txt, but don't care :-D)

So, if there is no one can find use of two flags, I'll change it to one.
Comments from any others?

quoted text
> If "pull by idle" is attempted on a system
> which tends to be idle, then while it is true that the search for something
> to pull will usually find nothing, what does it matter that we wasted some
> otherwise idle cycles, looking for pullable, runnable tasks that cannot be
> found, on a system that is mostly idle?
> 
> If "push to idle" is attempted on a system that is quite busy, then
> couldn't that be coded to notice rather quickly if any nearby CPUs are
> idle, and not search if there are no idle neighbors.  One could imagine
> a word of memory for each smaller domain ("neighborhood") of CPUs (say
> all the logical CPUs in a package), with one bit per logical CPU, that
> was set if-and-only-if that CPU was in idle.  Then it would be very
> quick for all the CPUs in that domain to see if there are (or just
> were ... close enough) any idle CPUs, and skip trying to "push to idle"
> if that word was all zero bits.  That is, there would be no sense
> trying to push to idle if there were no idle CPUs to push to.  The only
> writing and the only locking of that word would be from idle loop code,
> and only from nearby CPUs in the same small domain, so it would not be
> an impediment to large system scaling or a waste of many CPU cycles on
> busy systems.
> 
> With a little work such as this, we could make it so that anytime you
> needed either flag, you could turn on both, and the other one would be
> harmless enough ... just a minor consumer of otherwise idle cycles.
> 
> Then with that, we could have one flag, that did both.

I believe there are quite technical reasons why we have no "idle_map."
Excellent answers would be brought by scheduler folks...

quoted text
>> It looks easy... but how do you handle if cpusets are overlapping?
> 
> Yeah - that part might be challenging.  Would it work to always take
> the largest domain balancing requested?

Hum... if one requests "smaller" and another is "don't care = default",
we always take "default" range.

Anyway, I'd like to give a lot of care to well-defined cpusets, and
I know that balancing on overlapping cpusets are easy to be confused,
so I'll update my patch to take levels, getting in your suggestion.

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