[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 15:22:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
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>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....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>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] sched/fair: Skip prefer sibling move between SMT
group and non-SMT group
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 09:09:54AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> From: Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
>
> Do not try to move tasks between non SMT sched group and SMT sched
> group for "prefer sibling" load balance.
> Let asym_active_balance_busiest() handle that case properly.
> Otherwise we could get task bouncing back and forth between
> the SMT sched group and non SMT sched group.
>
> Reviewed-by: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 8a325db34b02..58ef7d529731 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -10411,8 +10411,12 @@ static struct sched_group *find_busiest_group(struct lb_env *env)
> /*
> * Try to move all excess tasks to a sibling domain of the busiest
> * group's child domain.
> + *
> + * Do not try to move between non smt sched group and smt sched
> + * group. Let asym active balance properly handle that case.
> */
> if (sds.prefer_sibling && local->group_type == group_has_spare &&
> + !asymmetric_groups(sds.busiest, sds.local) &&
> busiest->sum_nr_running > local->sum_nr_running + 1)
> goto force_balance;
This seems to have the hidden assumption that a !SMT core is somehow
'less' that an SMT code. Should this not also look at
sched_asym_prefer() to establush this is so?
I mean, imagine I have a regular system and just offline one smt sibling
for giggles.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists