Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 13:44:02 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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,
        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>,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        Tobias Huschle <huschle@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 3/6] sched/fair: Implement prefer sibling imbalance
 calculation between asymmetric groups

On Fri, 2023-07-14 at 18:44 +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> 
> On 7/8/23 4:27 AM, Tim Chen wrote:
> > From: Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> > 
> > In the current prefer sibling load balancing code, there is an implicit
> > assumption that the busiest sched group and local sched group are
> > equivalent, hence the tasks to be moved is simply the difference in
> > number of tasks between the two groups (i.e. imbalance) divided by two.
> > 
> > However, we may have different number of cores between the cluster groups,
> > say when we take CPU offline or we have hybrid groups.  In that case,
> > we should balance between the two groups such that #tasks/#cores ratio
> > is the same between the same between both groups.  Hence the imbalance
> 
> nit: type here. the same between is repeated.

Thanks for catching.

> 
> > computed will need to reflect this.
> > 
> > Adjust the sibling imbalance computation to take into account of the
> > above considerations.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index f636d6c09dc6..f491b94908bf 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -9372,6 +9372,41 @@ static inline bool smt_balance(struct lb_env *env, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs,
> >  	return false;
> >  }
> > 
> > +static inline long sibling_imbalance(struct lb_env *env,
> > +				    struct sd_lb_stats *sds,
> > +				    struct sg_lb_stats *busiest,
> > +				    struct sg_lb_stats *local)
> > +{
> > +	int ncores_busiest, ncores_local;
> > +	long imbalance;
> 
> can imbalance be unsigned int or unsigned long? as sum_nr_running is unsigned int.

It could be made unsigned long. 

> 
> > +
> > +	if (env->idle == CPU_NOT_IDLE || !busiest->sum_nr_running)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	ncores_busiest = sds->busiest->cores;
> > +	ncores_local = sds->local->cores;
> > +
> > +	if (ncores_busiest == ncores_local) {
> > +		imbalance = busiest->sum_nr_running;
> > +		lsub_positive(&imbalance, local->sum_nr_running);
> > +		return imbalance;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* Balance such that nr_running/ncores ratio are same on both groups */
> > +	imbalance = ncores_local * busiest->sum_nr_running;
> > +	lsub_positive(&imbalance, ncores_busiest * local->sum_nr_running);
> > +	/* Normalize imbalance and do rounding on normalization */
> > +	imbalance = 2 * imbalance + ncores_local + ncores_busiest;
> > +	imbalance /= ncores_local + ncores_busiest;
> > +
> 
> Could this work for case where number of CPU/cores would differ
> between two sched groups in a sched domain? 
> 

Yes.  That's the problem I was targeting. 

> Such as problem pointed
> by tobias on S390. It would be nice if this patch can work for that case 
> as well. Ran numbers for a few cases. It looks to work.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230704134024.GV4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/T/#rb0a7dcd28532cafc24101e1d0aed79e6342e3901
> 
> 
> 
> > +	/* Take advantage of resource in an empty sched group */
> > +	if (imbalance == 0 && local->sum_nr_running == 0 &&
> > +	    busiest->sum_nr_running > 1)
> > +		imbalance = 2;
> > +
> 
> I don't see how this case would be true. When there are unequal number of cores and local->sum_nr_ruuning 
> is 0, and busiest->sum_nr_running is atleast 2, imbalance will be atleast 1. 
> 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks for the review.

> 
> > +	return imbalance;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static inline bool
> >  sched_reduced_capacity(struct rq *rq, struct sched_domain *sd)
> >  {
> > @@ -10230,14 +10265,12 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s
> >  		}
> > 
> >  		if (busiest->group_weight == 1 || sds->prefer_sibling) {
> > -			unsigned int nr_diff = busiest->sum_nr_running;
> >  			/*
> >  			 * When prefer sibling, evenly spread running tasks on
> >  			 * groups.
> >  			 */
> >  			env->migration_type = migrate_task;
> > -			lsub_positive(&nr_diff, local->sum_nr_running);
> > -			env->imbalance = nr_diff;
> > +			env->imbalance = sibling_imbalance(env, sds, busiest, local);
> >  		} else {
> > 
> >  			/*
> > @@ -10424,7 +10457,7 @@ static struct sched_group *find_busiest_group(struct lb_env *env)
> >  	 * group's child domain.
> >  	 */
> >  	if (sds.prefer_sibling && local->group_type == group_has_spare &&
> > -	    busiest->sum_nr_running > local->sum_nr_running + 1)
> > +	    sibling_imbalance(env, &sds, busiest, local) > 1)
> >  		goto force_balance;
> > 
> >  	if (busiest->group_type != group_overloaded) {
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists