[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <jhjtusxtv7b.mognet@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:52:24 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, qais.yousef@....com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5] sched/fair: select idle cpu from idle cpumask for task wakeup
On 07/12/20 15:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:31:13PM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> index f324dc36fc43..6f5947673e66 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void)
>> */
>>
>> if (cpuidle_not_available(drv, dev)) {
>> + update_idle_cpumask(this_rq(), true);
>> tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick();
>>
>> default_idle_call();
>> @@ -193,6 +194,7 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void)
>> max_latency_ns = dev->forced_idle_latency_limit_ns;
>> }
>>
>> + update_idle_cpumask(this_rq(), true);
>> tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick();
>>
>> next_state = cpuidle_find_deepest_state(drv, dev, max_latency_ns);
>> @@ -205,10 +207,12 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void)
>> */
>> next_state = cpuidle_select(drv, dev, &stop_tick);
>>
>> - if (stop_tick || tick_nohz_tick_stopped())
>> + if (stop_tick || tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) {
>> + update_idle_cpumask(this_rq(), true);
>> tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick();
>
> We already have a callback in tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick(), namely
> nohz_balance_enter_idle().
That's a no-op for !NO_HZ_COMMON though. For similar reasons, Aubrey moved
the clearing of the cpumask to scheduler_tick().
Are you saying this mechanism should only be driven for NO_HZ kernels? I
would tend to agree with Vincent that this could still be useful for idling
without cutting the tick (!NO_HZ or shallow idle state); see:
20201124170136.GA26613@...gu-book
Powered by blists - more mailing lists