[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2277bfa9-7f67-6b66-b2db-a2130993de53@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 08:32:01 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, vineeth@...byteword.org,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Agata Gruza <agata.gruza@...el.com>,
Antonio Gomez Iglesias <antonio.gomez.iglesias@...el.com>,
graf@...zon.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, dfaggioli@...e.com,
pjt@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, derkling@...gle.com,
benbjiang@...cent.com,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, OWeisse@...ch.edu,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...cle.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>, jsbarnes@...gle.com,
chris.hyser@...cle.com, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 13/32] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer
On 2020/11/24 7:35, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:07:27PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2020/11/23 12:38, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:43PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>>>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>>>>
>>>> When a sibling is forced-idle to match the core-cookie; search for
>>>> matching tasks to fill the core.
>>>>
>>>> rcu_read_unlock() can incur an infrequent deadlock in
>>>> sched_core_balance(). Fix this by using the RCU-sched flavor instead.
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>> +
>>>> + if (p->core_occupation > dst->idle->core_occupation)
>>>> + goto next;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I am unable to understand this check, a comment or clarification in the
>>> changelog will help. I presume we are looking at either one or two cpus
>>> to define the core_occupation and we expect to match it against the
>>> destination CPU.
>>
>> IIUC, this check prevents a task from keeping jumping among the cores forever.
>>
>> For example, on a SMT2 platform:
>> - core0 runs taskA and taskB, core_occupation is 2
>> - core1 runs taskC, core_occupation is 1
>>
>> Without this check, taskB could ping-pong between core0 and core1 by core load
>> balance.
>
> But the comparison is p->core_occuption (as in tasks core occuptation,
> not sure what that means, can a task have a core_occupation of > 1?)
>
p->core_occupation is assigned to the core occupation in the last pick_next_task.
(so yes, it can have a > 1 core_occupation).
Thanks,
-Aubrey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists