Messages in this thread | | | From | Jiang Biao <> | Date | Fri, 24 Jul 2020 20:40:24 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: consider sched-idle CPU when selecting idle core |
| |
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 20:36, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > > > * Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 18:34, Vincent Guittot > > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 10:12, Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:24, Vincent Guittot > > > > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 01:39, Jiang Biao <humjb_1983@163.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sched-idle CPU has been considered in select_idle_cpu and > > > > > > select_idle_smt, it also needs to be considered in select_idle_core to > > > > > > be consistent and keep the same *idle* policy. > > > > > > > > > > In the case of select_idle_core, we are looking for a core that is > > > > > fully idle but if one CPU of the core is running a sched_idle task, > > > > > the core will not be idle and we might end up having the wakeup task > > > > > on a CPU and a sched_idle task on another CPU of the core which is not > > > > > what we want > > > > Got it. sched_idle task may interfere its sibling, which brings me > > > > another question, > > > > If there's a core with smt1 running sched_idle task and smt2 idle, > > > > selecting smt1 > > > > rather than smt2 should be more helpful for wakee task, because wakee task > > > > could suppress the sched_idle task without neighbour interfering. > > > > > > But the sched_idle will then probably quickly move on the idle smt2 > > > > > > > And there seems to be no consideration about that currently. > > > > Is it worth improving that? > > > > > > This will complexify and extend the duration of the search loop and > > > as mentioned above, it will most probably be a nop at the end because > > > of sched_idle task moving on smt2 > > Indeed, the complexity is not worth. > > Thanks for the explanation. > > BTW., if you disagree then you could add a bit of debug > instrumentation to measure to what extent it's a nop at the end of the > search loop, to turn the "most probably" statement into a specific > number. > > Thanks, > > Ingo Ok, I'll try. Thanks for your reply.
Regards, Jiang
| |