[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YD0L6sba9RfXX+tM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 16:44:42 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prefer idle CPU to cache affinity
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 02:56:07PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 22:10 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > + if (sched_feat(WA_WAKER) && tnr_busy < tllc_size)
> > + return this_cpu;
>
> I wonder if we need to use a slightly lower threshold on
> very large LLCs, both to account for the fact that the
> select_idle_cpu code may not find the single idle CPU
> among a dozen busy ones, or because on a system with
> hyperthreading we may often be better off picking another
> LLC for HT contention issues?
>
> Maybe we could use "tnr_busy * 4 <
> tllc_size * 3" or
> something like that?
How about:
tnr_busy < tllc_size / topology_max_smt_threads()
?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists