[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210719103117.3624936-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 11:31:15 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/2] sched/fair: nohz.next_balance vs newly-idle CPUs
Hi folks,
The single patch has grown a sibling, and a cover letter along with it.
This was caught up by our testing on an arm64 RB5 board - that's an 8 CPUs
DynamIQ SoC with 4 littles, 3 mediums and 1 big. It seems to rely more on NOHZ
balancing than our other boards being tested, which highlighted that not
including a newly-idle CPU into nohz.next_balance can cause issues (especially
when the other CPUs have had their balance_interval inflated by pinned tasks).
As suggested by Vincent, the approach here is to mimic what was done for
nohz.has_blocked, which gives us sane(ish) ordering guarantees.
Revisions
=========
v1 -> v2
++++++++
o Ditched the extra cpumasks and went with a sibling of nohz.has_blocked
(Vincent)
Cheers,
Valentin
Valentin Schneider (2):
sched/fair: Add NOHZ balancer flag for nohz.next_balance updates
sched/fair: Trigger nohz.next_balance updates when a CPU goes
NOHZ-idle
kernel/sched/fair.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
kernel/sched/sched.h | 8 +++++++-
2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists