[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBSkg2tBH5U+GvRWHBe3qxCqdB3w6WPJsZPADDbVQCc0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:58:59 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] sched/fair: Attempt misfit active balance when
migration_type != migrate_misfit
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 19:32, Valentin Schneider
<valentin.schneider@....com> wrote:
>
> Consider a 4-CPU big.LITTLE system with CPUs 0-1 as LITTLEs and CPUs 2-3 as
> bigs. The resulting sched_domain hierarchy is:
>
> DIE [ ]
> MC [ ][ ]
> 0 1 2 3
>
> When running a multithreaded CPU-bound workload (i.e. 1 hog per CPU), the
> expected behaviour is to have the about-to-idle big CPUs pull a hog from
> the LITTLEs, since bigs will complete their work sooner than LITTLEs.
>
> Further Consider a scenario where:
> - CPU0 is idle (e.g. its hog got migrated to one of the big CPUs)
> - CPU1 is currently executing a per-CPU kworker, preempting the CPU hog
> - CPU2 and CPU3 are executing CPU-hogs
>
> CPU0 goes through load_balance() at MC level, and tries to pick stuff from
> CPU1, but:
> - the hog can't be pulled, because it's task_hot()
> - the kworker can't be pulled, because it's pinned to CPU1, which sets
> LBF_SOME_PINNED
>
> This load balance attempts ends with no load pulled, LBF_SOME_PINNED set,
> and as a consequence we set the imbalance flag of DIE's [0, 1]
> sched_group_capacity.
>
> Shortly after, CPU2 completes its work and is about to go idle. It goes
> through the newidle_balance(), and we would really like it to active
> balance the hog running on CPU1 (which is a misfit task). However,
> sgc->imbalance is set for the LITTLE group at DIE level, so the group gets
> classified as group_imbalanced rather than group_misfit_task.
>
> Unlike group_misfit_task (via migrate_misfit), the active balance logic
> doesn't have any specific case for group_imbalanced, so CPU2 ends up going
> idle. We'll have to wait for a load balance on CPU0 or CPU1 to happen and
> clear the imbalance flag, and then for another DIE-level load-balance on
> CPU2 to happen to pull the task off of CPU1. That's several precious
> milliseconds wasted down the drain.
>
> Giving group_misfit_task a higher group_classify() priority than
> group_imbalance doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Instead, make
Could you explain why ?
> need_active_balance() return true for any migration_type when the
> destination CPU is idle and the source CPU has a misfit task.
>
> While at it, add an sd_has_asym_cpucapacity() guard in
> need_active_balance().
>
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 0ac2f876b86f..cba9f97d9beb 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -9557,9 +9557,22 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> return 1;
> }
>
> + if (!sd_has_asym_cpucapacity(sd))
> + return 0;
> +
> if (env->migration_type == migrate_misfit)
> return 1;
>
> + /*
> + * If we failed to pull anything and the src_rq has a misfit task, but
> + * the busiest group_type was higher than group_misfit_task, try to
> + * go for a misfit active balance anyway.
> + */
> + if ((env->idle != CPU_NOT_IDLE) &&
> + env->src_rq->misfit_task_load &&
> + cpu_capacity_greater(env->dst_cpu, env->src_cpu))
> + return 1;
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.27.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists