lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] sched/fair: ignore SIS_UTIL when has idle core
From

On 7/14/22 3:15 PM, Yicong Yang Wrote:
> On 2022/7/14 14:58, Abel Wu wrote:
>>
>> On 7/14/22 2:19 PM, Yicong Yang Wrote:
>>> On 2022/7/12 16:20, Abel Wu wrote:
>>>> When SIS_UTIL is enabled, SIS domain scan will be skipped if
>>>> the LLC is overloaded. Since the overloaded status is checked
>>>> in the load balancing at LLC level, the interval is llc_size
>>>> miliseconds. The duration might be long enough to affect the
>>>> overall system throughput if idle cores are out of reach in
>>>> SIS domain scan.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   kernel/sched/fair.c | 15 +++++++++------
>>>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> index a78d2e3b9d49..cd758b3616bd 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> @@ -6392,16 +6392,19 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
>>>>       struct sched_domain *this_sd;
>>>>       u64 time = 0;
>>>>   -    this_sd = rcu_dereference(*this_cpu_ptr(&sd_llc));
>>>> -    if (!this_sd)
>>>> -        return -1;
>>>> -
>>>>       cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
>>>>   -    if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP) && !has_idle_core) {
>>>> +    if (has_idle_core)
>>>> +        goto scan;
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP)) {
>>>>           u64 avg_cost, avg_idle, span_avg;
>>>>           unsigned long now = jiffies;
>>>>   +        this_sd = rcu_dereference(*this_cpu_ptr(&sd_llc));
>>>> +        if (!this_sd)
>>>> +            return -1;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I don't follow the change here. True that this_sd is used only in SIS_PROP, but it seems irrelevant with your
>>> commit. Does the position of this make any performance difference?
>>
>> No, this change doesn't make much difference to performance. Are
>> you suggesting that I should make this a separate patch?
>>
>
> It just makes me think that dereference is unnecessary if this_cpu and target locates in
> the same LLC, since it's already been passed. But since you noticed no difference it may
> have little effect. :)
>

Hmm.. Not exactly. The sched-domains are cpu private, and this_cpu can
be in another LLC than target.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-14 10:02    [W:0.122 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site