lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/7] sched/fair: Generalize asym_packing logic for SMT local sched group
From
On 12/12/2022 18:53, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 06:22:41PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 22/11/2022 21:35, Ricardo Neri wrote:

[...]

>> I'm not sure why you change asym_smt_can_pull_tasks() together with
>> removing SD_ASYM_PACKING from SMT level (patch 5/7)?
>
> In x86 we have SD_ASYM_PACKING at the MC, CLS* and, before my patches, SMT
> sched domains.
>
>>
>> update_sg_lb_stats()
>>
>> ... && env->sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING && .. && sched_asym()
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> sched_asym()
>>
>> if ((sds->local->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY) ||
>> (group->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY))
>> return asym_smt_can_pull_tasks()
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> So x86 won't have a sched domain with SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY and
>> SD_ASYM_PACKING anymore. So sched_asym() would call sched_asym_prefer()
>> directly on MC. What do I miss here?
>
> asym_smt_can_pull_tasks() is used above the SMT level *and* when either the
> local or sg sched groups are composed of CPUs that are SMT siblings.

OK.

> In fact, asym_smt_can_pull_tasks() can only be called above the SMT level.
> This is because the flags of a sched_group in a sched_domain are equal to
> the flags of the child sched_domain. Since SMT is the lowest sched_domain,
> its groups' flags are 0.

I see. I forgot about `[PATCH v5 0/6] sched/fair: Fix load balancing of
SMT siblings with ASYM_PACKING` from Sept 21 (specifically [PATCH v5
2/6] sched/topology: Introduce sched_group::flags).

> sched_asym() calls sched_asym_prefer() directly if balancing at the
> SMT level and, at higher domains, if the child domain is not SMT.

OK.

> This meets the requirement of Power7, where SMT siblings have different
> priorities; and of x86, where physical cores have different priorities.
>
> Thanks and BR,
> Ricardo
>
> * The target of these patches is Intel hybrid processors, on which cluster
> scheduling is disabled - cabdc3a8475b ("sched,x86: Don't use cluster
> topology for x86 hybrid CPUs"). Also, I have not observed topologies in
> which CPUs of the same cluster have different priorities.

OK.

IMHO, the function header of asym_smt_can_pull_tasks() (3rd and 4th
paragraph ... `If both @dst_cpu and @sg have SMT siblings` and `If @sg
does not have SMT siblings` still reflect the old code layout.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:16    [W:0.083 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site