From: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@arm.com>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, corbet@lwn.net,
rdunlap@infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] sched/topology: Rework CPU capacity asymmetry detection
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 13:15:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210526121546.GA13262@e120325.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98ad8837-b9b8-ff50-5a91-8d5951ee757c@arm.com>
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 11:52:25AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 25/05/2021 12:29, Beata Michalska wrote:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:53:07AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> On 24/05/21 23:55, Beata Michalska wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 07:01:04PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >>>> On 24/05/21 11:16, Beata Michalska wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>>> +static inline int
> >>>>> +asym_cpu_capacity_classify(struct sched_domain *sd,
> >>>>> + const struct cpumask *cpu_map)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + int sd_asym_flags = SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY | SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL;
> >>>>> + struct asym_cap_data *entry;
> >>>>> + int asym_cap_count = 0;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (list_is_singular(&asym_cap_list))
> >>>>> + goto leave;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + list_for_each_entry(entry, &asym_cap_list, link) {
> >>>>> + if (cpumask_intersects(sched_domain_span(sd), entry->cpu_mask)) {
> >>>>> + ++asym_cap_count;
> >>>>> + } else {
> >>>>> + /*
> >>>>> + * CPUs with given capacity might be offline
> >>>>> + * so make sure this is not the case
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + if (cpumask_intersects(entry->cpu_mask, cpu_map)) {
> >>>>> + sd_asym_flags &= ~SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL;
> >>>>> + if (asym_cap_count > 1)
> >>>>> + break;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> Readability nit: That could be made into an else if ().
> >>> It could but then this way the -comment- gets more exposed.
> >>> But that might be my personal perception so I can change that.
> >>
> >> As always those are quite subjective! Methink something like this would
> >> still draw attention to the offline case:
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * Count how many unique capacities this domain covers. If a
> >> * capacity isn't covered, we need to check if any CPU with
> >> * that capacity is actually online, otherwise it can be
> >> * ignored.
> >> */
> >> if (cpumask_intersects(sched_domain_span(sd), entry->cpu_mask)) {
> >> ++asym_cap_count;
> >> } else if (cpumask_intersects(entry->cpu_mask, cpu_map)) {
> >> sd_asym_flags &= ~SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL;
> >> if (asym_cap_count > 1)
> >> break;
> >> }
> > Noted.
> > Will wait for some more comments before sending out 'polished' version.
>
> For me asym_cpu_capacity_classify() is pretty hard to digest ;-) But I
> wasn't able to break it. It also performs correctly on (non-existing SMT)
> layer (with sd span eq. single CPU).
>
> Something like this (separating asym_cap_list iteration and flags
> construction would be easier for me. But like already said here,
> it's subjective.
> I left the two optimizations (list_is_singular(), break on asym_cap_count
> > 1) out for now. asym_cap_list shouldn't have > 4 entries (;-)).
>
> static inline int
> asym_cpu_capacity_classify(struct sched_domain *sd,
> const struct cpumask *cpu_map)
> {
> int sd_span_match = 0, cpu_map_match = 0, flags = 0;
> struct asym_cap_data *entry;
>
> list_for_each_entry(entry, &asym_cap_list, link) {
> if (cpumask_intersects(sched_domain_span(sd), entry->cpu_mask))
> ++sd_span_match;
> else if (cpumask_intersects(cpu_map, entry->cpu_mask))
> ++cpu_map_match;
> }
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!sd_span_match);
>
> if (sd_span_match > 1) {
> flags |= SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY;
> if (!cpu_map_match)
> flags |= SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL;
> }
>
> return flags;
> }
So I planned to drop the list_is_singular check as it is needless really.
Otherwise, I am not really convinced by the suggestion. I could add comments
around current version to make it more ..... 'digestible' but I'd rather
stay with it as it seems more compact to me (subjective).
>
> BTW, how would this mechanism behave on a system with SMT and asymmetric CPU
> capacity? Something EAS wouldn't allow but I guess asym_cap_list will be
> constructed and the SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_XXX flags will be set?
Yes, the list would get created and flags set. I do not think there is
a difference with current approach (?). So EAS would be disabled (it only cares
about SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL flag) but the misift might still kick in.
---
BR
B.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-26 12:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-24 10:16 [PATCH v5 0/3] Rework CPU capacity asymmetry detection Beata Michalska
2021-05-24 10:16 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] sched/core: Introduce SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL sched_domain flag Beata Michalska
2021-05-24 10:16 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] sched/topology: Rework CPU capacity asymmetry detection Beata Michalska
2021-05-24 18:01 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-05-24 22:55 ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-24 23:19 ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-25 9:53 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-05-25 10:29 ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-26 9:52 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-26 12:15 ` Beata Michalska [this message]
2021-05-26 12:51 ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-26 18:17 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-26 21:40 ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-27 15:08 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-27 17:07 ` Beata Michalska
2021-06-02 17:17 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-06-02 19:48 ` Beata Michalska
2021-06-03 9:09 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-06-03 9:24 ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-26 18:17 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-26 21:43 ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-27 7:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-27 12:22 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-27 12:32 ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-25 8:25 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-25 9:30 ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-25 11:59 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-25 14:04 ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-24 10:16 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] sched/doc: Update the CPU capacity asymmetry bits Beata Michalska
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210526121546.GA13262@e120325.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=beata.michalska@arm.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).