| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20220428182442.659294-1-yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 02:24:42 +0800
From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>,
Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: Introduce SIS_UTIL to search idle CPU based on sum of util_avg
[Problem Statement]
select_idle_cpu() might spend too much time searching for an idle CPU,
when the system is overloaded.
The following histogram is the time spent in select_idle_cpu(),
when running 224 instances of netperf on a system with 112 CPUs
per LLC domain:
@usecs:
[0] 533 | |
[1] 5495 | |
[2, 4) 12008 | |
[4, 8) 239252 | |
[8, 16) 4041924 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
[16, 32) 12357398 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
[32, 64) 14820255 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
[64, 128) 13047682 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
[128, 256) 8235013 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
[256, 512) 4507667 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
[512, 1K) 2600472 |@@@@@@@@@ |
[1K, 2K) 927912 |@@@ |
[2K, 4K) 218720 | |
[4K, 8K) 98161 | |
[8K, 16K) 37722 | |
[16K, 32K) 6715 | |
[32K, 64K) 477 | |
[64K, 128K) 7 | |
netperf latency usecs:
=======
case load Lat_99th std%
TCP_RR thread-224 257.39 ( 0.21)
The time spent in select_idle_cpu() is visible to netperf and might have a negative
impact.
[Symptom analysis]
The patch [1] from Mel Gorman has been applied to track the efficiency
of select_idle_sibling. Copy the indicators here:
SIS Search Efficiency(se_eff%):
A ratio expressed as a percentage of runqueues scanned versus
idle CPUs found. A 100% efficiency indicates that the target,
prev or recent CPU of a task was idle at wakeup. The lower the
efficiency, the more runqueues were scanned before an idle CPU
was found.
SIS Domain Search Efficiency(dom_eff%):
Similar, except only for the slower SIS
patch.
SIS Fast Success Rate(fast_rate%):
Percentage of SIS that used target, prev or
recent CPUs.
SIS Success rate(success_rate%):
Percentage of scans that found an idle CPU.
The test is based on Aubrey's schedtests tool, netperf, hackbench,
schbench and tbench were launched with 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150%
175% 200% of CPU number respectively. Each test lasts for 100 seconds
and repeats 3 times. The system reboots into a fresh environment for
each test.
Test on vanilla kernel:
schedstat_parse.py -f netperf_vanilla.log
case load se_eff% dom_eff% fast_rate% success_rate%
TCP_RR 28 threads 99.978 18.535 99.995 100.000
TCP_RR 56 threads 99.397 5.671 99.964 100.000
TCP_RR 84 threads 21.721 6.818 73.632 100.000
TCP_RR 112 threads 12.500 5.533 59.000 100.000
TCP_RR 140 threads 8.524 4.535 49.020 100.000
TCP_RR 168 threads 6.438 3.945 40.309 99.999
TCP_RR 196 threads 5.397 3.718 32.320 99.982
TCP_RR 224 threads 4.874 3.661 25.775 99.767
UDP_RR 28 threads 99.988 17.704 99.997 100.000
UDP_RR 56 threads 99.528 5.977 99.970 100.000
UDP_RR 84 threads 24.219 6.992 76.479 100.000
UDP_RR 112 threads 13.907 5.706 62.538 100.000
UDP_RR 140 threads 9.408 4.699 52.519 100.000
UDP_RR 168 threads 7.095 4.077 44.352 100.000
UDP_RR 196 threads 5.757 3.775 35.764 99.991
UDP_RR 224 threads 5.124 3.704 28.748 99.860
schedstat_parse.py -f schbench_vanilla.log
(each group has 28 tasks)
case load se_eff% dom_eff% fast_rate% success_rate%
normal 1 mthread 99.152 6.400 99.941 100.000
normal 2 mthreads 97.844 4.003 99.908 100.000
normal 3 mthreads 96.395 2.118 99.917 99.998
normal 4 mthreads 55.288 1.451 98.615 99.804
normal 5 mthreads 7.004 1.870 45.597 61.036
normal 6 mthreads 3.354 1.346 20.777 34.230
normal 7 mthreads 2.183 1.028 11.257 21.055
normal 8 mthreads 1.653 0.825 7.849 15.549
schedstat_parse.py -f hackbench_vanilla.log
(each group has 28 tasks)
case load se_eff% dom_eff% fast_rate% success_rate%
process-pipe 1 group 99.991 7.692 99.999 100.000
process-pipe 2 groups 99.934 4.615 99.997 100.000
process-pipe 3 groups 99.597 3.198 99.987 100.000
process-pipe 4 groups 98.378 2.464 99.958 100.000
process-pipe 5 groups 27.474 3.653 89.811 99.800
process-pipe 6 groups 20.201 4.098 82.763 99.570
process-pipe 7 groups 16.423 4.156 77.398 99.316
process-pipe 8 groups 13.165 3.920 72.232 98.828
process-sockets 1 group 99.977 5.882 99.999 100.000
process-sockets 2 groups 99.927 5.505 99.996 100.000
process-sockets 3 groups 99.397 3.250 99.980 100.000
process-sockets 4 groups 79.680 4.258 98.864 99.998
process-sockets 5 groups 7.673 2.503 63.659 92.115
process-sockets 6 groups 4.642 1.584 58.946 88.048
process-sockets 7 groups 3.493 1.379 49.816 81.164
process-sockets 8 groups 3.015 1.407 40.845 75.500
threads-pipe 1 group 99.997 0.000 100.000 100.000
threads-pipe 2 groups 99.894 2.932 99.997 100.000
threads-pipe 3 groups 99.611 4.117 99.983 100.000
threads-pipe 4 groups 97.703 2.624 99.937 100.000
threads-pipe 5 groups 22.919 3.623 87.150 99.764
threads-pipe 6 groups 18.016 4.038 80.491 99.557
threads-pipe 7 groups 14.663 3.991 75.239 99.247
threads-pipe 8 groups 12.242 3.808 70.651 98.644
threads-sockets 1 group 99.990 6.667 99.999 100.000
threads-sockets 2 groups 99.940 5.114 99.997 100.000
threads-sockets 3 groups 99.469 4.115 99.977 100.000
threads-sockets 4 groups 87.528 4.038 99.400 100.000
threads-sockets 5 groups 6.942 2.398 59.244 88.337
threads-sockets 6 groups 4.359 1.954 49.448 87.860
threads-sockets 7 groups 2.845 1.345 41.198 77.102
threads-sockets 8 groups 2.871 1.404 38.512 74.312
schedstat_parse.py -f tbench_vanilla.log
case load se_eff% dom_eff% fast_rate% success_rate%
loopback 28 threads 99.976 18.369 99.995 100.000
loopback 56 threads 99.222 7.799 99.934 100.000
loopback 84 threads 19.723 6.819 70.215 100.000
loopback 112 threads 11.283 5.371 55.371 99.999
loopback 140 threads 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
loopback 168 threads 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
loopback 196 threads 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
loopback 224 threads 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
According to the test above, if the system becomes busy, the
SIS Search Efficiency(se_eff%) drops significantly. Although some
benchmarks would finally find an idle CPU(success_rate% = 100%), it is
doubtful whether it is worth it to search the whole LLC domain.
[Proposal]
It would be ideal to have a crystal ball to answer this question:
How many CPUs must a wakeup path walk down, before it can find an idle
CPU? Many potential metrics could be used to predict the number.
One candidate is the sum of util_avg in this LLC domain. The benefit
of choosing util_avg is that it is a metric of accumulated historic
activity, which seems to be smoother than instantaneous metrics
(such as rq->nr_running). Besides, choosing the sum of util_avg
would help predict the load of the LLC domain more precisely, because
SIS_PROP uses one CPU's idle time to estimate the total LLC domain idle
time. As Peter suggested[2], the lower the util_avg is, the
more select_idle_cpu() should scan for idle CPU, and vice versa.
Introduce the quadratic function:
y = a - bx^2
x is the sum_util ratio [0, 100] of this LLC domain, and y is the percentage
of CPUs to be scanned in the LLC domain. The number of CPUs to search drops
as sum_util increases. When sum_util hits 85% or above, the scan stops.
Choosing 85% is because it is the threshold of an overloaded LLC sched group
(imbalance_pct = 117). Choosing quadratic function is because:
[1] Compared to the linear function, it scans more aggressively when the
sum_util is low.
[2] Compared to the exponential function, it is easier to calculate.
[3] It seems that there is no accurate mapping between the sum of util_avg
and the number of CPUs to be scanned. Use heuristic scan for now.
The steps to calculate scan_nr are as followed:
[1] scan_percent = 100 - (x/8.5)^2
when utilization reaches 85%, scan_percent becomes 0.
[2] scan_nr = nr_llc * scan_percent / 100
[3] scan_nr = max(scan_nr, 0)
For a platform with 112 CPUs per LLC, the number of CPUs to scan is:
sum_util% 0 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 ...
scan_ns 112 112 108 103 92 80 64 47 24 0 ...
Furthermore, to minimize the overhead of calculating the metrics in
select_idle_cpu(), borrow the statistics from periodic load balance.
As mentioned by Abel, on a platform with 112 CPUs per LLC, the
sum_util calculated by periodic load balance after 112ms would decay
to about 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.7 = 8.75%, thus bringing a delay in
reflecting the latest utilization. But it is a trade-off.
Checking the util_avg in newidle load balance would be more frequent,
but it brings overhead - multiple CPUs write/read the per-LLC shared
variable and introduces cache false sharing. And Tim also mentioned
that, it is allowed to be non-optimal in terms of scheduling for the
short term variations, but if there is a long term trend in the load
behavior, the scheduler can adjust for that.
SIS_UTIL is disabled by default. When it is enabled, the select_idle_cpu()
will use the nr_scan calculated by SIS_UTIL instead of the one from
SIS_PROP. Later SIS_UTIL and SIS_PROP could be made mutually exclusive.
[Test result]
The following is the benchmark result comparison between
baseline:vanilla and compare:patched kernel. Positive compare%
indicates better performance.
netperf.throughput
each thread: netperf -4 -H 127.0.0.1 -t TCP/UDP_RR -c -C -l 100
=======
case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%)
TCP_RR 28 threads 1.00 ( 0.40) +1.14 ( 0.37)
TCP_RR 56 threads 1.00 ( 0.49) +0.62 ( 0.31)
TCP_RR 84 threads 1.00 ( 0.50) +0.26 ( 0.55)
TCP_RR 112 threads 1.00 ( 0.27) +0.29 ( 0.28)
TCP_RR 140 threads 1.00 ( 0.22) +0.14 ( 0.23)
TCP_RR 168 threads 1.00 ( 0.21) +0.40 ( 0.19)
TCP_RR 196 threads 1.00 ( 0.18) +183.40 ( 16.43)
TCP_RR 224 threads 1.00 ( 0.16) +188.44 ( 9.29)
UDP_RR 28 threads 1.00 ( 0.47) +1.45 ( 0.47)
UDP_RR 56 threads 1.00 ( 0.28) -0.22 ( 0.30)
UDP_RR 84 threads 1.00 ( 0.38) +1.72 ( 27.10)
UDP_RR 112 threads 1.00 ( 0.16) +0.01 ( 0.18)
UDP_RR 140 threads 1.00 ( 14.10) +0.32 ( 11.15)
UDP_RR 168 threads 1.00 ( 12.75) +0.91 ( 11.62)
UDP_RR 196 threads 1.00 ( 14.41) +191.97 ( 19.34)
UDP_RR 224 threads 1.00 ( 15.34) +194.88 ( 17.06)
Take the 224 threads as an example, the SIS search metrics changes are
illustrated below:
vanilla patched
4544492 +237.5% 15338634 sched_debug.cpu.sis_domain_search.avg
38539 +39686.8% 15333634 sched_debug.cpu.sis_failed.avg
128300000 -87.9% 15551326 sched_debug.cpu.sis_scanned.avg
5842896 +162.7% 15347978 sched_debug.cpu.sis_search.avg
There is -87.9% less CPU scans after patched, which indicates lower overhead.
Besides, with this patch applied, there is -13% less rq lock contention
in perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock.raw_spin_rq_lock_nested
.try_to_wake_up.default_wake_function.woken_wake_function.
This could help explain the performance improvement - Because this patch allows
the waking task to remain on the previous CPU, rather than grabbing other CPU's
lock.
Other benchmarks:
hackbench.throughput
=========
case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%)
process-pipe 1 group 1.00 ( 0.09) -0.54 ( 0.82)
process-pipe 2 groups 1.00 ( 0.47) +0.89 ( 0.61)
process-pipe 4 groups 1.00 ( 0.83) +0.90 ( 0.15)
process-pipe 8 groups 1.00 ( 0.09) +0.31 ( 0.07)
process-sockets 1 group 1.00 ( 0.13) -0.58 ( 0.49)
process-sockets 2 groups 1.00 ( 0.41) -0.58 ( 0.52)
process-sockets 4 groups 1.00 ( 0.61) -0.37 ( 0.50)
process-sockets 8 groups 1.00 ( 0.22) +1.15 ( 0.10)
threads-pipe 1 group 1.00 ( 0.35) -0.28 ( 0.78)
threads-pipe 2 groups 1.00 ( 0.65) +0.03 ( 0.96)
threads-pipe 4 groups 1.00 ( 0.43) +0.81 ( 0.38)
threads-pipe 8 groups 1.00 ( 0.11) -1.56 ( 0.07)
threads-sockets 1 group 1.00 ( 0.30) -0.39 ( 0.41)
threads-sockets 2 groups 1.00 ( 0.21) -0.23 ( 0.27)
threads-sockets 4 groups 1.00 ( 0.23) +0.36 ( 0.19)
threads-sockets 8 groups 1.00 ( 0.13) +1.57 ( 0.06)
tbench.throughput
======
case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%)
loopback 28 threads 1.00 ( 0.15) +1.05 ( 0.08)
loopback 56 threads 1.00 ( 0.09) +0.36 ( 0.04)
loopback 84 threads 1.00 ( 0.12) +0.26 ( 0.06)
loopback 112 threads 1.00 ( 0.12) +0.04 ( 0.09)
loopback 140 threads 1.00 ( 0.04) +2.98 ( 0.18)
loopback 168 threads 1.00 ( 0.10) +2.88 ( 0.30)
loopback 196 threads 1.00 ( 0.06) +2.63 ( 0.03)
loopback 224 threads 1.00 ( 0.08) +2.60 ( 0.06)
schbench.latency_90%_us
========
case load baseline compare%
normal 1 mthread 1.00 -1.7%
normal 2 mthreads 1.00 +1.6%
normal 4 mthreads 1.00 +1.4%
normal 8 mthreads 1.00 +21.0%
Limitations:
[1]
This patch is based on the util_avg, which is very sensitive to the CPU
frequency invariance. The util_avg would decay quite fast when the
CPU is idle, if the max frequency has been limited by the user.
Patch [3] should be applied if turbo is disabled manually on Intel
platforms.
[2]
There may be unbalanced tasks among CPUs due to CPU affinity. For example,
suppose the LLC domain is composed of 8 CPUs, and 7 tasks are bound to
CPU0~CPU6, while CPU7 is idle:
CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 CPU4 CPU5 CPU6 CPU7
util_avg 1024 1024 1024 1024 1024 1024 1024 0
Since the util_avg ratio is 87.5%( = 7/8 ), which is higher than 85%,
select_idle_cpu() will not scan, thus CPU7 is undetected.
A possible workaround to mitigate this problem is that the nr_scan should
be increased if idle CPUs are detected during periodic load balance. And the
problem could be mitigated by idle load balance that, CPU7 might pull some
tasks on it.
[3]
Prateek mentioned that we should scan aggressively in an LLC domain
with 16 CPUs. Because the cost to search for an idle one among 16 CPUs is
negligible. The current patch aims to propose a generic solution and only
considers the util_avg. A follow-up change could enhance the scan policy
to adjust the scan_percent according to the CPU number in LLC.
v2->v3:
- Use 85% as the threshold again, because the CPU frequency invariance issue
has been fixed and the patch is queued for 5.19.
- Stop the scan if 85% is reached, rather than scanning for at least 4 CPUs.
According to the feedback from Yicong, it might be better to stop scanning
entirely when the LLC is overloaded.
- Replace linear scan with quadratic function scan, to let the SIS scan
aggressively when the LLC is not busy. Prateek mentioned there was slight
regression from ycsb-mongodb in v2, which might be due to fewer CPUs
scanned when the utilization is around 20%.
- Add back the logic to stop the CPU scan even if has_idle_core is true.
It might be a waste of time to search for an idle Core if the LLC is
overloaded. Besides, according to the tbench result from Prateek, stop idle
Core scan would bring extra performance improvement.
- Provide the SIS search statistics in the commit log, based on Mel Gorman's
patch, which is suggested by Adel.
- Introduce SIS_UTIL sched feature rather than changing the logic of SIS_PROP
directly, which can be reviewed easier.
v2->v1:
- As suggested by Peter, introduce an idle CPU scan strategy that is based on
the util_avg metric. When util_avg is very low it scans more, while when
util_avg hits the threshold we naturally stop scanning entirely. The threshold
has been decreased from 85% to 50%, because this is the threshold when the
CPU is nearly 100% but with turbo disabled. At least scan for 4 CPUs even
when the LLC is overloaded, to keep it consistent with the current logic of
select_idle_cpu().
v1:
- Stop scanning the idle CPU in select_idle_cpu(), if the sum of util_avg in
the LLC domain has reached 85%.
[Resend to include the missing mailing list, sorry for any inconvenience.]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210726102247.21437-2-mgorman@techsingularity.net #1
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220207135253.GF23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net #2
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220407234258.569681-1-yu.c.chen@intel.com #3
Suggested-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
---
include/linux/sched/topology.h | 1 +
kernel/sched/fair.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
kernel/sched/features.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 58 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched/topology.h b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
index 56cffe42abbc..816df6cc444e 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched/topology.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ struct sched_domain_shared {
atomic_t ref;
atomic_t nr_busy_cpus;
int has_idle_cores;
+ int nr_idle_scan;
};
struct sched_domain {
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 23c7d0f617ee..50c9d5b2b338 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6327,6 +6327,7 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
{
struct cpumask *cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(select_idle_mask);
int i, cpu, idle_cpu = -1, nr = INT_MAX;
+ struct sched_domain_shared *sd_share;
struct rq *this_rq = this_rq();
int this = smp_processor_id();
struct sched_domain *this_sd;
@@ -6366,6 +6367,17 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
time = cpu_clock(this);
}
+ if (sched_feat(SIS_UTIL)) {
+ sd_share = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc_shared, target));
+ if (sd_share) {
+ /* because !--nr is the condition to stop scan */
+ nr = READ_ONCE(sd_share->nr_idle_scan) + 1;
+ /* overloaded LLC is unlikely to have idle cpu/core */
+ if (nr == 1)
+ return -1;
+ }
+ }
+
for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target + 1) {
if (has_idle_core) {
i = select_idle_core(p, cpu, cpus, &idle_cpu);
@@ -9267,6 +9279,46 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
return idlest;
}
+static inline void update_idle_cpu_scan(struct lb_env *env,
+ unsigned long sum_util)
+{
+ struct sched_domain_shared *sd_share;
+ int nr_scan, nr_llc, llc_util_pct;
+
+ if (!sched_feat(SIS_UTIL))
+ return;
+ /*
+ * Update the number of CPUs to scan in LLC domain, which could
+ * be used as a hint in select_idle_cpu(). The update of this hint
+ * occurs during periodic load balancing, rather than frequent
+ * newidle balance.
+ */
+ nr_llc = per_cpu(sd_llc_size, env->dst_cpu);
+ if (env->idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE ||
+ env->sd->span_weight != nr_llc)
+ return;
+
+ sd_share = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc_shared, env->dst_cpu));
+ if (!sd_share)
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * The number of CPUs to search drops as sum_util increases, when
+ * sum_util hits 85% or above, the scan stops.
+ * The reason to choose 85% as the threshold is because this is the
+ * imbalance_pct when a LLC sched group is overloaded.
+ * let y = 100 - (x/8.5)^2 = 100 - x^2/72
+ * y is the percentage of CPUs to be scanned in the LLC
+ * domain, x is the ratio of sum_util compared to the
+ * CPU capacity, which ranges in [0, 100], thus
+ * nr_scan = nr_llc * y / 100
+ */
+ llc_util_pct = (sum_util * 100) / (nr_llc * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
+ nr_scan = (100 - (llc_util_pct * llc_util_pct / 72)) * nr_llc / 100;
+ nr_scan = max(nr_scan, 0);
+ WRITE_ONCE(sd_share->nr_idle_scan, nr_scan);
+}
+
/**
* update_sd_lb_stats - Update sched_domain's statistics for load balancing.
* @env: The load balancing environment.
@@ -9279,6 +9331,7 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd
struct sched_group *sg = env->sd->groups;
struct sg_lb_stats *local = &sds->local_stat;
struct sg_lb_stats tmp_sgs;
+ unsigned long sum_util = 0;
int sg_status = 0;
do {
@@ -9311,6 +9364,7 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd
sds->total_load += sgs->group_load;
sds->total_capacity += sgs->group_capacity;
+ sum_util += sgs->group_util;
sg = sg->next;
} while (sg != env->sd->groups);
@@ -9336,6 +9390,8 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd
WRITE_ONCE(rd->overutilized, SG_OVERUTILIZED);
trace_sched_overutilized_tp(rd, SG_OVERUTILIZED);
}
+
+ update_idle_cpu_scan(env, sum_util);
}
#define NUMA_IMBALANCE_MIN 2
diff --git a/kernel/sched/features.h b/kernel/sched/features.h
index 1cf435bbcd9c..69be099019f4 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/features.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/features.h
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ SCHED_FEAT(TTWU_QUEUE, true)
* When doing wakeups, attempt to limit superfluous scans of the LLC domain.
*/
SCHED_FEAT(SIS_PROP, true)
+SCHED_FEAT(SIS_UTIL, false)
/*
* Issue a WARN when we do multiple update_rq_clock() calls
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists