[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPJCdBnv4W5+u6OZ4vbAdJ2U8ubhfAU7+Zt0JUFjfxKEDuGJSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 16:12:35 +0800
From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...il.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Jiang Biao <humjb_1983@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: consider sched-idle CPU when selecting idle core
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:24, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 01:39, Jiang Biao <humjb_1983@....com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...cent.com>
> >
> > Sched-idle CPU has been considered in select_idle_cpu and
> > select_idle_smt, it also needs to be considered in select_idle_core to
> > be consistent and keep the same *idle* policy.
>
> In the case of select_idle_core, we are looking for a core that is
> fully idle but if one CPU of the core is running a sched_idle task,
> the core will not be idle and we might end up having the wakeup task
> on a CPU and a sched_idle task on another CPU of the core which is not
> what we want
Got it. sched_idle task may interfere its sibling, which brings me
another question,
If there's a core with smt1 running sched_idle task and smt2 idle,
selecting smt1
rather than smt2 should be more helpful for wakee task, because wakee task
could suppress the sched_idle task without neighbour interfering.
And there seems to be no consideration about that currently.
Is it worth improving that?
Thanks a lot.
Regards,
Jiang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists