Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sun, 10 Oct 2021 22:27:24 +0800 | From | Tao Zhou <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Check idle_cpu in select_idle_core/cpu() |
| |
Hi Barry,
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 01:19:57AM +1300, Barry Song wrote: > On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 10:45 PM Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@linux.dev> wrote: > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:50:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 02:09:41AM +0800, Tao Zhou wrote: > > > > In select_idle_core(), the idle core returned may have no cpu > > > > allowed. I think the idle core returned for the task is the one > > > > that can be allowed to run. I insist on this semantics. > > > > > > > > In select_idle_cpu(), if select_idle_core() can not find the > > > > idle core, one reason is that the core is not allowed for the > > > > task, but the core itself is idle from the point of > > > > sds->has_idle_cores. I insist on this semantics. > > > > > > > > No others, just two additional check. > > > > --- > > > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > > > index f6a05d9b5443..a44aca5095d3 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > > > @@ -6213,7 +6213,7 @@ static int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p, int core, struct cpumask *cpu > > > > *idle_cpu = cpu; > > > > } > > > > > > > > - if (idle) > > > > + if (idle && *idle_cpu != -1) > > > > return core; > > > > > > In that case, core would be nr_cpu_ids (==nr_cpumask_bits), and then the caller checks: > > > > > > (unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits > > > > Thank you for reply. > > > > > > If (1)there is no idle core or (2)the idle core has no allowed cpu, we return -1. > > Originally, just (1) has happened, we return -1. The (2) is what I want to add. > > I don't understand (2). before doing > for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target + 1) { > if (has_idle_core) { > i = select_idle_core(p, cpu, cpus, &idle_cpu); > if ((unsigned int)i < nr_cpumask_bits) > return i; > > } else { > if (!--nr) > return -1; > idle_cpu = __select_idle_cpu(cpu, p); > if ((unsigned int)idle_cpu < nr_cpumask_bits) > break; > } > } > > to select idle core, we have already done: > cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr); > > so we are only scanning allowed cpus.
Um.. You read top down.. and you are right. The function itself semantics is important to me.
After a secondary recall and not thorough now, I realize that cpus_ptr may be changed.
See code of this:
static void migrate_disable_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p) { if (likely(!p->migration_disabled)) return;
if (p->cpus_ptr != &p->cpus_mask) return;
/* * Violates locking rules! see comment in __do_set_cpus_allowed(). */ __do_set_cpus_allowed(p, cpumask_of(rq->cpu), SCA_MIGRATE_DISABLE); }
This change is under the light of ->pi_lock. That thing is quick to forget to me.. Not sure I am right. Thank you for remind.
If the cpu_ptr can be changed, you can not depend on the first AND operation there.
> > > > If we find idle core and has allowed cpu in the core, is it better to return > > @*idle_cpu. > > > > if (idle && *idle_cpu != -1) > > return *idle_cpu; > > > > This @*idle_cpu is the allowed cpu in the idle core. We do not promise anything > > about the @core(target) is the allowed cpu until we hit in select_task_rq() --> > > select_fallback_rq(). And the select_fallback_rq() will return a different cpu > > than the @core or @*idle_cpu. > > > > > > cpumask_andnot(cpus, cpus, cpu_smt_mask(core)); > > > > @@ -6324,7 +6324,7 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > - if (has_idle_core) > > > > + if (has_idle_core && *idle_cpu != -1) > > > > set_idle_cores(target, false); > > > > > > And this one I'm completely failing, why shouldn't we mark the core as > > > non-idle when there is a single idle CPU found? That's just worng. > > > > When @has_idle_core is true, it implies for all cpu in the core the case > > (1) or case (2) has happened. The (1) can be mark as non-idle. I conclude > > to contradiction myself last time. The (2) is also seemed to be non-idle. > > > > > > But, I think I am totally wrong because the sds->has_idle_cores is related > > to the cpu not task. So, the affinity should not affect the decision of > > sds->has_idle_cores. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Tao > > Thanks > barry
Thanks, Tao
| |