[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20231031133821.1570861-1-keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:38:22 +0100
From: Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@...ia.fr>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@...ia.fr>
Subject: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance
should_we_balance is called for the decision to do load-balancing.
When sched ticks invoke this function, only one CPU should return
true. However, in the current code, two CPUs can return true. The
following situation, where b means busy and i means idle, is an
example, because CPU 0 and CPU 2 return true.
[0, 1] [2, 3]
b b i b
This fix checks if there exists an idle CPU with busy sibling(s)
after looking for a CPU on an idle core. If some idle CPUs with busy
siblings are found, just the first one should do load-balancing.
Fixes: b1bfeab9b002 ("sched/fair: Consider the idle state of the whole core for load balance")
Signed-off-by: Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@...ia.fr>
Reviewed-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Reviewed-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 +++++++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 2048138ce54b..921f4f65adef 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -11079,12 +11079,16 @@ static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
continue;
}
- /* Are we the first idle CPU? */
+ /*
+ * Are we the first idle core in a non-SMT domain or higher,
+ * or the first idle CPU in a SMT domain?
+ */
return cpu == env->dst_cpu;
}
- if (idle_smt == env->dst_cpu)
- return true;
+ /* Are we the first idle CPU with busy siblings? */
+ if (idle_smt != -1)
+ return idle_smt == env->dst_cpu;
/* Are we the first CPU of this group ? */
return group_balance_cpu(sg) == env->dst_cpu;
--
2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists