From: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Call newidle_balance() from finish_task_switch()
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:33:01 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2a30101cc0adb63ee7ce7b32119579d78de24b71.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jhjftcns35d.mognet@arm.com>
On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 22:37 +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 28/04/20 06:02, Scott Wood wrote:
> > Thus, newidle_balance() is entered with interrupts enabled, which allows
> > (in the next patch) enabling interrupts when the lock is dropped.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/core.c | 7 ++++---
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++----------------------------
> > kernel/sched/sched.h | 6 ++----
> > 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 9a2fbf98fd6f..0294beb8d16c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -3241,6 +3241,10 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct
> > task_struct *prev)
> > }
> >
> > tick_nohz_task_switch();
> > +
> > + if (is_idle_task(current))
> > + newidle_balance();
> > +
>
> This means we must go through a switch_to(idle) before figuring out we
> could've switched to a CFS task, and do it then. I'm curious to see the
> performance impact of that.
Any particular benchmark I should try?
> > return rq;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -10425,14 +10408,23 @@ static inline void nohz_newidle_balance(struct
> > rq *this_rq) { }
> > * 0 - failed, no new tasks
> > * > 0 - success, new (fair) tasks present
> > */
> > -int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> > +int newidle_balance(void)
> > {
> > unsigned long next_balance = jiffies + HZ;
> > - int this_cpu = this_rq->cpu;
> > + int this_cpu;
> > struct sched_domain *sd;
> > + struct rq *this_rq;
> > int pulled_task = 0;
> > u64 curr_cost = 0;
> >
> > + preempt_disable();
> > + this_rq = this_rq();
> > + this_cpu = this_rq->cpu;
> > + local_bh_disable();
> > + raw_spin_lock_irq(&this_rq->lock);
> > +
> > + update_rq_clock(this_rq);
> > +
> > update_misfit_status(NULL, this_rq);
>
> I'm thinking this should be moved to where newidle_balance() used to be,
> otherwise we have a window where the rq is flagged as having a misfit
> task despite not having any runnable CFS tasks.
OK
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-28 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-28 5:02 [RFC PATCH 0/3] newidle_balance() latency mitigation Scott Wood
2020-04-28 5:02 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Call newidle_balance() from finish_task_switch() Scott Wood
2020-04-28 21:37 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-28 22:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-28 22:55 ` Scott Wood
2020-04-28 23:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-28 23:20 ` Scott Wood
2020-04-29 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-30 1:31 ` Scott Wood
2020-05-11 10:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-11 12:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-28 22:33 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2020-04-29 12:00 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-29 8:27 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-30 1:36 ` Scott Wood
2020-04-28 5:02 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched/fair: Enable interrupts when dropping lock in newidle_balance() Scott Wood
2020-04-28 5:02 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched,rt: break out of load balancing if an RT task appears Scott Wood
2020-04-28 21:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-28 22:33 ` Scott Wood
2020-04-28 22:52 ` Scott Wood
2020-04-29 12:01 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-28 13:27 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] newidle_balance() latency mitigation Steven Rostedt
2020-04-29 23:13 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-30 7:44 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-30 10:14 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-30 12:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-30 13:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-30 12:48 ` Vincent Guittot
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=2a30101cc0adb63ee7ce7b32119579d78de24b71.camel@redhat.com \
--to=swood@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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).