Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Oct 2023 13:16:41 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance | From | Shrikanth Hegde <> |
| |
On 10/31/23 11:29 AM, Chen Yu wrote: > On 2023-10-30 at 18:29:46 +0100, Keisuke Nishimura wrote: >> should_we_balance is called for the decision to do load-balancing. >> When sched ticks invoke this function, only one CPU should return >> true. However, in the current code, two CPUs can return true. The >> following situation, where b means busy and i means idle, is an >> example, because CPU 0 and CPU 2 return true. >> >> [0, 1] [2, 3] >> b b i b >> >> This fix checks if there exists an idle CPU with busy sibling(s) >> after looking for a CPU on an idle core. If some idle CPUs with busy >> siblings are found, just the first one should do load-balancing. >>
As Chen indicated, it would be better to carry reviewed by tags.
>> Fixes: b1bfeab9b002 ("sched/fair: Consider the idle state of the whole core for load balance") >> Signed-off-by: Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr> >> --- >> kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 +++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> index 2048138ce54b..69d63fae34f4 100644 >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> @@ -11079,12 +11079,16 @@ static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env) >> continue; >> } >> >> - /* Are we the first idle CPU? */ >> + /* >> + * Are we the first idle core in a MC or higher domain > > It is possible that the Cluster domain is lower than a MC. > cluser domain: CPUs share the same L2 > MC domain: CPUs share the same LLC > > grep . domain*/{name,flags} > domain0/name:CLS > domain1/name:MC > domain2/name:NUMA > domain0/flags:SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE SD_BALANCE_EXEC SD_BALANCE_FORK SD_WAKE_AFFINE SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES SD_PREFER_SIBLING > domain1/flags:SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE SD_BALANCE_EXEC SD_BALANCE_FORK SD_WAKE_AFFINE SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES SD_PREFER_SIBLING > domain2/flags:SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE SD_BALANCE_EXEC SD_BALANCE_FORK SD_WAKE_AFFINE SD_SERIALIZE SD_OVERLAP SD_NUMA > > So, maybe: > Are we the first idle core in a non-SMT domain or higher,
Yes. That makes sense. Forgot about recent cluster addition.
> > thanks, > Chenyu > >> + * or the first idle CPU in a SMT domain? >> + */ >> return cpu == env->dst_cpu; >> } >> >> - if (idle_smt == env->dst_cpu) >> - return true; >> + /* Are we the first idle CPU with busy siblings? */ >> + if (idle_smt != -1) >> + return idle_smt == env->dst_cpu; >> >> /* Are we the first CPU of this group ? */ >> return group_balance_cpu(sg) == env->dst_cpu; >> -- >> 2.34.1 >>
| |