[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <431faa39-4f5c-0087-7ce5-16796ca1a9e1@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2023 00:11:45 +0530
From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
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>,
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>,
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>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
shrikanth hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/12] sched/fair: Keep a fully_busy SMT sched group as
busiest
On 4/7/23 2:01 AM, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> When comparing two fully_busy scheduling groups, keep the current busiest
> group if it represents an SMT core. Tasks in such scheduling group share
> CPU resources and need more help than tasks in a non-SMT fully_busy group.
>
> Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
> Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
> Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
> Cc: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Tim C. Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
> Cc: x86@...nel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Tested-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> Changes since v3:
> * None
>
> Changes since v2:
> * Introduced this patch.
>
> Changes since v1:
> * N/A
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index b151e93ec316..ea23a5163bfa 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -9566,10 +9566,22 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
> * contention when accessing shared HW resources.
> *
> * XXX for now avg_load is not computed and always 0 so we
> - * select the 1st one.
> + * select the 1st one, except if @sg is composed of SMT
> + * siblings.
> */
> - if (sgs->avg_load <= busiest->avg_load)
> +
> + if (sgs->avg_load < busiest->avg_load)
> return false;
> +
> + if (sgs->avg_load == busiest->avg_load) {
> + /*
> + * SMT sched groups need more help than non-SMT groups.
> + * If @sg happens to also be SMT, either choice is good.
> + */
> + if (sds->busiest->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY)
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> break;
IIUC,
Earlier, we used to go to out_balanced if sgs->avg_load <= busiest->avg_load.
Now we go only if it is less. lets say sgs->avg_load == busiest->avg_load,
then we will return true in MC,DIE domain. This might end up traversing
multiple such group's and pick the last one as the busiest instead of
first. I guess eventually any load balance if exists will be fixed. But
this might cause slight overhead. would it?
nit: There is typo in [2/12] if the whole core is repeated.
+ * CPUs. When done between cores, do it only if the whole core if the
+ * whole core is idle.
Mentioning in this reply instead, to avoid sending another mail reply for this.
>
> case group_has_spare:
Powered by blists - more mailing lists