[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210506042844.GB3388@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 21:28:44 -0700
From: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.comi>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] sched/fair: Consider SMT in ASYM_PACKING load
balance
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:52:25AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 07:04:35PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > +static bool cpu_group_is_smt(int cpu, struct sched_group *sg)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> > + if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_smt_present))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (sg->group_weight == 1)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + return cpumask_equal(sched_group_span(sg), cpu_smt_mask(cpu));
> > +#else
> > + return false;
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * asym_can_pull_tasks - Check whether the load balancing CPU can pull tasks
> > + * @dst_cpu: CPU doing the load balancing
> > + * @sds: Load-balancing data with statistics of the local group
> > + * @sgs: Load-balancing statistics of the candidate busiest group
> > + * @sg: The candidate busiet group
> > + *
> > + * Check the state of the SMT siblings of both @sds::local and @sg and decide
> > + * if @dst_cpu can pull tasks. If @dst_cpu does not have SMT siblings, it can
> > + * pull tasks if two or more of the SMT siblings of @sg are busy. If only one
> > + * CPU in @sg is busy, pull tasks only if @dst_cpu has higher priority.
> > + *
> > + * If both @dst_cpu and @sg have SMT siblings. Even the number of idle CPUs
> > + * between @sds::local and @sg. Thus, pull tasks from @sg if the difference
> > + * between the number of busy CPUs is 2 or more. If the difference is of 1,
> > + * only pull if @dst_cpu has higher priority. If @sg does not have SMT siblings
> > + * only pull tasks if all of the SMT siblings of @dst_cpu are idle and @sg
> > + * has lower priority.
> > + */
> > +static bool asym_can_pull_tasks(int dst_cpu, struct sd_lb_stats *sds,
> > + struct sg_lb_stats *sgs, struct sched_group *sg)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> > + int cpu, local_busy_cpus, sg_busy_cpus;
> > + bool local_is_smt, sg_is_smt;
> > +
> > + if (!arch_asym_check_smt_siblings())
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + cpu = group_first_cpu(sg);
> > + local_is_smt = cpu_group_is_smt(dst_cpu, sds->local);
> > + sg_is_smt = cpu_group_is_smt(cpu, sg);
>
> Would something like this make sense?
>
> ---
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -8533,21 +8533,6 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(st
> sgs->group_capacity;
> }
>
> -static bool cpu_group_is_smt(int cpu, struct sched_group *sg)
> -{
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> - if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_smt_present))
> - return false;
> -
> - if (sg->group_weight == 1)
> - return false;
> -
> - return cpumask_equal(sched_group_span(sg), cpu_smt_mask(cpu));
> -#else
> - return false;
> -#endif
> -}
> -
> /**
> * asym_can_pull_tasks - Check whether the load balancing CPU can pull tasks
> * @dst_cpu: CPU doing the load balancing
> @@ -8578,8 +8563,8 @@ static bool asym_can_pull_tasks(int dst_
> return true;
>
> cpu = group_first_cpu(sg);
> - local_is_smt = cpu_group_is_smt(dst_cpu, sds->local);
> - sg_is_smt = cpu_group_is_smt(cpu, sg);
> + local_is_smt = sds->local->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY;
> + sg_is_smt = sg->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY;
>
> sg_busy_cpus = sgs->group_weight - sgs->idle_cpus;
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -1795,6 +1795,7 @@ struct sched_group {
> unsigned int group_weight;
> struct sched_group_capacity *sgc;
> int asym_prefer_cpu; /* CPU of highest priority in group */
> + int flags;
>
> /*
> * The CPUs this group covers.
> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> @@ -916,10 +916,12 @@ build_group_from_child_sched_domain(stru
> return NULL;
>
> sg_span = sched_group_span(sg);
> - if (sd->child)
> + if (sd->child) {
> cpumask_copy(sg_span, sched_domain_span(sd->child));
> - else
> + sg->flags = sd->child->flags;
> + } else {
> cpumask_copy(sg_span, sched_domain_span(sd));
> + }
>
> atomic_inc(&sg->ref);
> return sg;
> @@ -1169,6 +1171,7 @@ static struct sched_group *get_group(int
> if (child) {
> cpumask_copy(sched_group_span(sg), sched_domain_span(child));
> cpumask_copy(group_balance_mask(sg), sched_group_span(sg));
> + sg->flags = child->flags;
> } else {
> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, sched_group_span(sg));
> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, group_balance_mask(sg));
Thank you Peter! This code worked well and it looks better than what I
proposed. May I add your Originally-by: and Signed-off-by: tags in a
patch when I post v3?
BR,
Ricardo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists