[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201204113030.GZ3371@techsingularity.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:30:30 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Ziljstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Linux-ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] sched/fair: Clear the target CPU from the cpumask
of CPUs searched
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > The intent was that the sibling might still be an idle candidate. In
> > the current draft of the series, I do not even clear this so that the
> > SMT sibling is considered as an idle candidate. The reasoning is that if
> > there are no idle cores then an SMT sibling of the target is as good an
> > idle CPU to select as any.
>
> Isn't the purpose of select_idle_smt ?
>
Only in part.
> select_idle_core() looks for an idle core and opportunistically saves
> an idle CPU candidate to skip select_idle_cpu. In this case this is
> useless loops for select_idle_core() because we are sure that the core
> is not idle
>
If select_idle_core() finds an idle candidate other than the sibling,
it'll use it if there is no idle core -- it picks a busy sibling based
on a linear walk of the cpumask. Similarly, select_idle_cpu() is not
guaranteed to scan the sibling first (ordering) or even reach the sibling
(throttling). select_idle_smt() is a last-ditch effort.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists