linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
	"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
	Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@intel.com>,
	Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
	"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] sched/fair: Consider SMT in ASYM_PACKING load balance
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 19:14:15 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210515021415.GB14212@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YJ5HQR943rSFsLxw@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 11:47:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 08:49:08AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> >  include/linux/sched/topology.h |   1 +
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c            | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched/topology.h b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > index 8f0f778b7c91..43bdb8b1e1df 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ static inline int cpu_numa_flags(void)
> >  #endif
> >  
> >  extern int arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cpu);
> > +extern bool arch_asym_check_smt_siblings(void);
> >  
> >  struct sched_domain_attr {
> >  	int relax_domain_level;
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index c8b66a5d593e..3d6cc027e6e6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -106,6 +106,15 @@ int __weak arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cpu)
> >  	return -cpu;
> >  }
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * For asym packing, first check the state of SMT siblings before deciding to
> > + * pull tasks.
> > + */
> > +bool __weak arch_asym_check_smt_siblings(void)
> > +{
> > +	return false;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * The margin used when comparing utilization with CPU capacity.
> >   *
> 
> > @@ -8458,6 +8550,9 @@ sched_asym(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sds,  struct sg_lb_stats *sgs
> >  	if (group == sds->local)
> >  		return false;
> >  
> > +	if (arch_asym_check_smt_siblings())
> > +		return asym_can_pull_tasks(env->dst_cpu, sds, sgs, group);
> > +
> >  	return sched_asym_prefer(env->dst_cpu, group->asym_prefer_cpu);
> >  }
> 
> So I'm thinking that this is a property of having ASYM_PACKING at a core
> level, rather than some arch special. Wouldn't something like this be
> more appropriate?
> 
> ---
> --- a/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> @@ -57,7 +57,6 @@ static inline int cpu_numa_flags(void)
>  #endif
>  
>  extern int arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cpu);
> -extern bool arch_asym_check_smt_siblings(void);
>  
>  struct sched_domain_attr {
>  	int relax_domain_level;
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -107,15 +107,6 @@ int __weak arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cp
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * For asym packing, first check the state of SMT siblings before deciding to
> - * pull tasks.
> - */
> -bool __weak arch_asym_check_smt_siblings(void)
> -{
> -	return false;
> -}
> -
> -/*
>   * The margin used when comparing utilization with CPU capacity.
>   *
>   * (default: ~20%)
> @@ -8550,7 +8541,8 @@ sched_asym(struct lb_env *env, struct sd
>  	if (group == sds->local)
>  		return false;
>  
> -	if (arch_asym_check_smt_siblings())
> +	if ((sds->local->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY) ||
> +	    (group->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY))
>  		return asym_can_pull_tasks(env->dst_cpu, sds, sgs, group);

Thanks Peter for the quick review! This makes sense to me. The only
reason we proposed arch_asym_check_smt_siblings() is because we were
about breaking powerpc (I need to study how they set priorities for SMT,
if applicable). If you think this is not an issue I can post a
v4 with this update.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-15  2:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-13 15:49 [PATCH v3 0/6] sched/fair: Fix load balancing of SMT siblings with ASYM_PACKING Ricardo Neri
2021-05-13 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] sched/topology: Introduce sched_group::flags Ricardo Neri
2021-05-13 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/fair: Optimize checking for group_asym_packing Ricardo Neri
2021-05-13 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] sched/fair: Provide update_sg_lb_stats() with sched domain statistics Ricardo Neri
2021-05-13 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] sched/fair: Carve out logic to mark a group for asymmetric packing Ricardo Neri
2021-05-17 14:21   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-18 19:18     ` Ricardo Neri
2021-05-13 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] sched/fair: Consider SMT in ASYM_PACKING load balance Ricardo Neri
2021-05-14  9:47   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-15  2:14     ` Ricardo Neri [this message]
2021-05-18 19:07       ` Ricardo Neri
2021-05-19  9:59         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-19 11:09           ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-05-19 12:05           ` Srikar Dronamraju
2021-05-17 15:18   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-18 19:10     ` Ricardo Neri
2021-05-17 22:28   ` Joel Fernandes
2021-05-17 22:34     ` Joel Fernandes
2021-05-13 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] x86/sched: Enable SMT checks for asymmetric packing in load balancing Ricardo Neri

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=20210515021415.GB14212@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com \
    --to=ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=aubrey.li@intel.com \
    --cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=ravi.v.shankar@intel.com \
    --cc=ricardo.neri@intel.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.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).