lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 3/4] sched/fair: Introduce SIS_CORE
From
On 10/21/22 12:34 PM, Chen Yu wrote:
> On 2022-10-21 at 12:30:56 +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
>> Hi Chen, thanks for your reviewing!
>>
>> On 10/21/22 12:03 PM, Chen Yu wrote:
>>> On 2022-10-19 at 20:28:58 +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
>>> [cut]
>>>> A major concern is the accuracy of the idle cpumask. A cpu present
>>>> in the mask might not be idle any more, which is called the false
>>>> positive cpu. Such cpus will negate lots of benefit this feature
>>>> brings. The strategy against the false positives will be introduced
>>>> in next patch.
>>>>
>>> I was thinking that, if patch[3/4] needs [4/4] to fix the false positives,
>>> maybe SIS_CORE could be disabled by default in 3/4 but enabled
>>> in 4/4? So this might facilicate git bisect in case of any regression
>>> check?
>>
>> Agreed. Will fix in next version.
>>
>>> [cut]
>>>> + * To honor the rule of CORE granule update, set this cpu to the LLC idle
>>>> + * cpumask only if there is no cpu of this core showed up in the cpumask.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static void update_idle_cpu(int cpu)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct sched_domain_shared *sds;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!sched_feat(SIS_CORE))
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + sds = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc_shared, cpu));
>>>> + if (sds) {
>>>> + struct cpumask *icpus = to_cpumask(sds->icpus);
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * This is racy against clearing in select_idle_cpu(),
>>>> + * and can lead to idle cpus miss the chance to be set to
>>>> + * the idle cpumask, thus the idle cpus are temporarily
>>>> + * out of reach in SIS domain scan. But it should be rare
>>>> + * and we still have ILB to kick them working.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (!cpumask_intersects(cpu_smt_mask(cpu), icpus))
>>>> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, icpus);
>>> Maybe I miss something, here we only set one CPU in the icpus, but
>>> when we reach update_idle_cpu(), all SMT siblings of 'cpu' are idle,
>>> is this intended for 'CORE granule update'?
>>
>> The __update_idle_core() is called by all the cpus that need to go idle
>> to update has_idle_core if necessary, and update_idle_cpu() is called
>> before that check.
>>
> I see.
>
> Since __update_idle_core() has checked all SMT siblings of 'cpu' if
> they are idle, can that information also be updated to icpus?

I think this will simply fallback to the original per-cpu proposal and
lose the opportunity to spread tasks to different cores.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-10-21 11:36    [W:0.117 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site