When a CPU is kicked to do nohz idle balancing, it wakes up to do load
balancing on itself, followed by load balancing on behalf of idle CPUs.
But it may end up with load after the load balancing attempt on itself.
This aborts nohz idle balancing. As a result several idle CPUs are left
without tasks till such a time that an ILB CPU finds it unfavorable to
pull tasks upon itself. This delays spreading of load across idle CPUs
and worse, clutters only a few CPUs with tasks.
The effect of the above problem was observed on an SMT8 POWER server
with 2 levels of numa domains. Busy loops equal to number of cores were
spawned. Since load balancing on fork/exec is discouraged across numa
domains, all busy loops would start on one of the numa domains. However
it was expected that eventually one busy loop would run per core across
all domains due to nohz idle load balancing. But it was observed that it
took as long as 10 seconds to spread the load across numa domains.
Further investigation showed that this was a consequence of the
following:
1. An ILB CPU was chosen from the first numa domain to trigger nohz idle
load balancing [Given the experiment, upto 6 CPUs per core could be
potentially idle in this domain.]
2. However the ILB CPU would call load_balance() on itself before
initiating nohz idle load balancing.
3. Given cores are SMT8, the ILB CPU had enough opportunities to pull
tasks from its sibling cores to even out load.
4. Now that the ILB CPU was no longer idle, it would abort nohz idle
load balancing
As a result the opportunities to spread load across numa domains were
lost until such a time that the cores within the first numa domain had
equal number of tasks among themselves. This is a pretty bad scenario,
since the cores within the first numa domain would have as many as 4
tasks each, while cores in the neighbouring numa domains would all
remain idle.
Fix this, by checking if a CPU was woken up to do nohz idle load
balancing, before it does load balancing upon itself. This way we allow
idle CPUs across the system to do load balancing which results in
quicker spread of load, instead of performing load balancing within the
local sched domain hierarchy of the ILB CPU alone under circumstances
such as above.
Signed-off-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org
Cc: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
Cc: efault@gmx.de
Cc: iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com
Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com
Cc: pjt@google.com
Cc: riel@redhat.com
Cc: srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com
Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150326130014.21532.17158.stgit@preeti.in.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
d4573c3e1c