[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3a41995b-c39c-7346-e04b-7f13433b51c2@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 14:40:24 +0100
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Tim C . Chen" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: Let low-priority cores help
high-priority busy SMT cores
On 07/02/2023 05:58, Ricardo Neri wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 80c86462c6f6..c9d0ddfd11f2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -10436,11 +10436,20 @@ static struct rq *find_busiest_queue(struct lb_env *env,
> nr_running == 1)
> continue;
>
> - /* Make sure we only pull tasks from a CPU of lower priority */
> + /*
> + * Make sure we only pull tasks from a CPU of lower priority
> + * when balancing between SMT siblings.
> + *
> + * If balancing between cores, let lower priority CPUs help
> + * SMT cores with more than one busy sibling.
> + */
> if ((env->sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING) &&
> sched_asym_prefer(i, env->dst_cpu) &&
> - nr_running == 1)
> - continue;
> + nr_running == 1) {
> + if (env->sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY ||
> + (!(env->sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY) && is_core_idle(i)))
> + continue;
is_core_idle(i) returns true for !CONFIG_SCHED_SMP. So far it was always
guarded by `flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY` which is only set for
CONFIG_SCHED_SMP.
Here it's different but still depends on `flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING`.
Can we have SD_ASYM_PACKING w/o CONFIG_SCHED_SMP? The comment just says
`If balancing between cores (MC), let lower priority CPUs help SMT cores
with more than one busy sibling.`
So this only mentions your specific asymmetric e-cores w/o SMT and
p-cores w/ SMT case.
I'm asking since numa_idle_core(), the only user of is_core_idle() so
far has an extra `!static_branch_likely(&sched_smt_present)` condition
before calling it.
> + }
>
> switch (env->migration_type) {
> case migrate_load:
> @@ -10530,8 +10539,20 @@ asym_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> * lower priority CPUs in order to pack all tasks in the
> * highest priority CPUs.
> */
> - return env->idle != CPU_NOT_IDLE && (env->sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING) &&
> - sched_asym_prefer(env->dst_cpu, env->src_cpu);
> + if (env->idle != CPU_NOT_IDLE && (env->sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING)) {
> + /* Always obey priorities between SMT siblings. */
> + if (env->sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY)
> + return sched_asym_prefer(env->dst_cpu, env->src_cpu);
> +
> + /*
> + * A lower priority CPU can help an SMT core with more than one
> + * busy sibling.
> + */
> + return sched_asym_prefer(env->dst_cpu, env->src_cpu) ||
> + !is_core_idle(env->src_cpu);
Here it is similar.
> + }
> +
> + return false;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists