[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5d18148c47cda4fca9f970e0cf520b997abdce8d.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2025 09:28:31 -0800
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>, Peter Zijlstra
<peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>, Doug
Nelson <doug.nelson@...el.com>, Mohini Narkhede
<mohini.narkhede@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: Skip sched_balance_running cmpxchg when
balance is not due
On Fri, 2025-11-07 at 08:27 +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Hello Tim,
>
> On 11/7/2025 4:57 AM, Tim Chen wrote:
> > @@ -11757,6 +11772,7 @@ static int sched_balance_rq(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
> > .fbq_type = all,
> > .tasks = LIST_HEAD_INIT(env.tasks),
> > };
> > + int need_unlock = false;
> >
> > cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), cpu_active_mask);
> >
> > @@ -11768,6 +11784,13 @@ static int sched_balance_rq(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
> > goto out_balanced;
> > }
> >
> > + if (idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE && (sd->flags & SD_SERIALIZE)) {
> > + if (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&sched_balance_running, 0, 1)) {
> > + goto out_balanced;
> > + }
> > + need_unlock = true;
> > + }
> > +
> > group = sched_balance_find_src_group(&env);
> > if (!group) {
> > schedstat_inc(sd->lb_nobusyg[idle]);
> > @@ -11892,6 +11915,9 @@ static int sched_balance_rq(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
> > if (!cpumask_subset(cpus, env.dst_grpmask)) {
> > env.loop = 0;
> > env.loop_break = SCHED_NR_MIGRATE_BREAK;
> > + if (need_unlock)
> > + atomic_set_release(&sched_balance_running, 0);
>
> I believe we should reset "need_unlock" to false here since "redo" can
> fail the atomic_cmpxchg_acquire() while still having "need_unlock" set
> to "true" and the "out_balanced" path will then perform the
> atomic_set_release() when another CPU is in middle of a busy / idle
> balance on a SD_SERIALIZE domain.
Makes sense.
>
> We can also initialize the "need_unlock" to false just after
> the redo label too - whichever you prefer.
>
> nit. "need_unlock" can just be a bool instead of an int.
Sure.
Tim
>
> Apart from that, feel free to include:
>
> Reviewed-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
>
> > +
> > goto redo;
> > }
> > goto out_all_pinned;
> > @@ -12008,6 +12034,9 @@ static int sched_balance_rq(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
> > sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval)
> > sd->balance_interval *= 2;
> > out:
> > + if (need_unlock)
> > + atomic_set_release(&sched_balance_running, 0);
> > +
> > return ld_moved;
> > }
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists