[RFC PATCH v3 3/6] sched: pack small tasks

[Preeti U Murthy]

Hi Peter,

On 04/26/2013 03:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:51:51PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 03/26/2013 05:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 13:25 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>> +static bool is_buddy_busy(int cpu)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>>>> +
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * A busy buddy is a CPU with a high load or a small load with
>>>> a lot of
>>>> +        * running tasks.
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       return (rq->avg.runnable_avg_sum >
>>>> +                       (rq->avg.runnable_avg_period / (rq->nr_running
>>>> + 2)));
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Why does the comment talk about load but we don't see it in the
>>> equation. Also, why does nr_running matter at all? I thought we'd
>>> simply bother with utilization, if fully utilized we're done etc..
>>>
>>
>> Peter, lets say the run-queue has 50% utilization and is running 2
>> tasks. And we wish to find out if it is busy. We would compare this
>> metric with the cpu power, which lets say is 100.
>>
>> rq->util * 100 < cpu_of(rq)->power.
>>
>> In the above scenario would we declare the cpu _not_busy? Or would we do
>> the following:
>>
>> (rq->util * 100) * #nr_running <  cpu_of(rq)->power and conclude that it
>> is just enough _busy_ to not take on more processes?
> 
> That is just confused... ->power doesn't have anything to do with a per-cpu
> measure. ->power is a inter-cpu measure of relative compute capacity.

Ok.

> 
> Mixing in nr_running confuses things even more; it doesn't matter how many
> tasks it takes to push utilization up to 100%; once its there the cpu simply
> cannot run more.

True, this is from the perspective of the CPU. But will not the tasks on
this CPU get throttled if, you find the utilization of this CPU < 100%
and decide to put more tasks on it?

Regards
Preeti U Murthy