[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e2495b3a-81c5-4238-b766-2ab6e892b6bf@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:53:32 +0100
From: Tobias Huschle <huschle@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
vschneid@...hat.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] sched/fair: introduce new scheduler group type
group_parked
On 18/02/2025 06:44, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
[...]
>> @@ -1352,6 +1352,9 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
>> if (rq->cfs.h_nr_queued > 1)
>> return false;
>> + if (rq->cfs.nr_running > 0 && arch_cpu_parked(cpu_of(rq)))
>> + return false;
>> +
>
> you mean rq->cfs.h_nr_queued or rq->nr_running ?
>
cfs.h_nr_queued is probably more sensible, will use that.
[...]
>> @@ -11259,6 +11293,8 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct
>> lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s
>> * avg_load : Only if imbalance is significant enough.
>> * nr_idle : dst_cpu is not busy and the number of idle CPUs is quite
>> * different in groups.
>> + * nr_task : balancing can go either way depending on the number of
>> running tasks
>> + * per group
>> */
>
> This comment on nr_task can be removed as it is not present in the list.
>
Consider it gone.
[...]
>> @@ -11766,7 +11822,7 @@ static int sched_balance_rq(int this_cpu,
>> struct rq *this_rq,
>> ld_moved = 0;
>> /* Clear this flag as soon as we find a pullable task */
>> env.flags |= LBF_ALL_PINNED;
>> - if (busiest->nr_running > 1) {
>> + if (busiest->nr_running > 1 || arch_cpu_parked(busiest->cpu)) {
>
> Since there is reliance on active balance if there is single task, it
> think above isn't needed. Is there any usecase for it?
>
Seems to work without that check. I have no particular use case in mind.
>> /*
>> * Attempt to move tasks. If sched_balance_find_src_group
>> has found
>> * an imbalance but busiest->nr_running <= 1, the group is
>> @@ -12356,6 +12412,11 @@ static void nohz_balancer_kick(struct rq *rq)
>> if (time_before(now, nohz.next_balance))
>> goto out;
>> + if (!idle_cpu(rq->cpu)) {
>> + flags = NOHZ_STATS_KICK | NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>
> This could be agrressive. Note when the code comes here, it is not idle.
> It would bail out early if it is idle.
>
It seems like we can do without this one as well.
>> if (rq->nr_running >= 2) {
>> flags = NOHZ_STATS_KICK | NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK;
>> goto out;
>> @@ -12767,6 +12828,9 @@ static int sched_balance_newidle(struct rq
>> *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
>> update_misfit_status(NULL, this_rq);
>> + if (arch_cpu_parked(this_cpu))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> /*
>> * There is a task waiting to run. No need to search for one.
>> * Return 0; the task will be enqueued when switching to idle.
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/syscalls.c b/kernel/sched/syscalls.c
>> index 456d339be98f..7efd76a30be7 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/syscalls.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/syscalls.c
>> @@ -214,6 +214,9 @@ int idle_cpu(int cpu)
>> return 0;
>> #endif
>> + if (arch_cpu_parked(cpu))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> return 1;
>> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists