[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1fa026a44ed4d31254396e5ed6cfda1dc68c837d.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 16:35:12 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tobias Huschle <huschle@...ux.ibm.com>,
Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 3/6] sched/fair: Implement prefer sibling imbalance
calculation between asymmetric groups
On Fri, 2023-07-14 at 16:22 +0200, Tobias Huschle wrote:
>
> >
> > Could this work for case where number of CPU/cores would differ
> > between two sched groups in a sched domain? 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
> >
>
>
> Just stumbled upon this patch series as well. In this version it looks
> similar to the prototypes I played around with, but more complete.
> So I'm happy that my understanding of the load balancer was kinda
> correct :)
>
> From a functional perspective this appears to address the issues we saw
> on s390.
Glad that this patch addresses this common issue across architectures.
I did aim to address the asymmetric groups balancing in general.
Peter pointed out this problem that's inherent when he reviewed the first
version of my patchset.
Tim
>
> >
> >
> > > + /* 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>
> >
> > > + 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