[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOBnfPjH=y3Lk7AukLeG4mNcJnf5cgV260=PZCbF9u69-T+Q6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 16:25:28 -0400
From: Vineeth Pillai <vineethrp@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tao.zhou@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: fix pick_next_task 'max' tracking
Hi Peter,
> > Here, we should have instead updated 'max' when picking for SMT-1. Note
> > that this code would eventually have righted itself, since the retry
> > loop would re-pick p2, and update 'max' accordingly. However, this patch
> > avoids the extra round-trip.
>
> Going with the observation Tao made; how about we rewrite the whole lot
> to not be mind-bending complicated :-)
>
> How's this? It seems to build and pass the core-sched selftest thingy
> (so it must be perfect, right? :-)
>
Nice, the code is much simpler now :-). A minor suggestion down..
> - for_each_cpu(i, smt_mask) {
> - struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
> -
> + /*
> + * For each thread: do the regular task pick and find the max prio task
> + * amongst them.
> + *
> + * Tie-break prio towards the current CPU
> + */
> + for_each_cpu_wrap(i, smt_mask, cpu) {
> + rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
> rq_i->core_pick = NULL;
>
> if (i != cpu)
> update_rq_clock(rq_i);
> +
> + for_each_class(class) {
> + p = rq_i->core_temp = class->pick_task(rq_i);
I think we can use core_pick to store the pick here and core_temp
might not be required. What do you feel?
> + if (p)
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (!max || prio_less(max, p, fi_before))
> + max = p;
Thanks,
Vineeth
Powered by blists - more mailing lists