lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/7] sched/fair: Generalize asym_packing logic for SMT local sched group
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 02:03:15PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> 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

Agreed. I changed the behavior of the function. I will update the
description.

>`If @sg does not have SMT siblings` still reflect the old code layout.

But this behavior did not change. The check covers both SMT and non-SMT
cases:

/*
* non-SMT @sg can only have 1 busy CPU. We only care SMT @sg
* has exactly one busy sibling
*/
if (sg_busy_cpus == 1 &&
/* local group is fully idle, SMT and non-SMT. */
!sds->local_stat.sum_nr_running)

Perhaps I can collapse the two paragraphs into one.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:17    [W:0.068 / U:1.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site