* [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology
@ 2017-10-10 6:37 Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 6:37 ` [RESEND PATCH v11 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() Byungchul Park
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Byungchul Park @ 2017-10-10 6:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, rostedt; +Cc: linux-kernel, juri.lelli, kernel-team
Change from v10
-. modify a comment a bit as Steven suggested
Change from v9
-. modify a comment a bit so to be more clear as Juri suggested
Change from v8
-. add suggested-by Peterz
-. add several comments
Change from v7
-. fix a trivial typo
-. modify commit messages to explain what it does more clearly
-. simplify code with an existing macro
Change from v6
-. add a comment about selection of fallback_cpu incase more than one exist
-. modify a comment explaining what we do wrt PREFER_SIBLING
Change from v5
-. exclude two patches already picked up by peterz
(sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology)
(sched/deadline: Change return value of cpudl_find())
-. apply what peterz fixed for 'prefer sibling', into deadline and rt
Change from v4
-. remove a patch that might cause huge lock contention
(by spin lock(&cpudl.lock) in a hot path of scheduler)
Change from v3
-. rename closest_cpu to best_cpu so that it align with rt
-. protect referring cpudl.elements with cpudl.lock
-. change return value of cpudl_find() to bool
Change from v2
-. add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING
Change from v1
-. clean up the patch
Byungchul Park (2):
sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq()
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
kernel/sched/rt.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [RESEND PATCH v11 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
2017-10-10 6:37 [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
@ 2017-10-10 6:37 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-23 8:44 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-27 8:39 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 6:37 ` [RESEND PATCH v11 2/2] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-10-12 8:00 ` [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Byungchul Park @ 2017-10-10 6:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, rostedt; +Cc: linux-kernel, juri.lelli, kernel-team
It would be better to try to check other siblings first if
SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration.
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
---
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
index 0223694..d619c07 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -1319,12 +1319,35 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_earliest_pushable_dl_task(struct rq *rq, int cpu
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, local_cpu_mask_dl);
+/*
+ * Find the first cpu in: mask & sd & ~prefer
+ */
+static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
+ const struct sched_domain *sd,
+ const struct sched_domain *prefer)
+{
+ const struct cpumask *sds = sched_domain_span(sd);
+ const struct cpumask *ps = prefer ? sched_domain_span(prefer) : NULL;
+ int cpu;
+
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
+ if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sds))
+ continue;
+ if (ps && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, ps))
+ continue;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ return cpu;
+}
+
static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
{
- struct sched_domain *sd;
+ struct sched_domain *sd, *prefer = NULL;
struct cpumask *later_mask = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(local_cpu_mask_dl);
int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
int cpu = task_cpu(task);
+ int fallback_cpu = -1;
/* Make sure the mask is initialized first */
if (unlikely(!later_mask))
@@ -1376,15 +1399,37 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
return this_cpu;
}
- best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(later_mask,
- sched_domain_span(sd));
/*
- * Last chance: if a cpu being in both later_mask
- * and current sd span is valid, that becomes our
- * choice. Of course, the latest possible cpu is
- * already under consideration through later_mask.
+ * If a cpu exists that is in the later_mask and
+ * the current sd span, but not in the prefer sd
+ * span, then that becomes our choice.
+ *
+ * Of course, the latest possible cpu is already
+ * under consideration through later_mask.
*/
+ best_cpu = find_cpu(later_mask, sd, prefer);
+
if (best_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
+ /*
+ * If current domain is SD_PREFER_SIBLING
+ * flaged, we have to try to check other
+ * siblings first.
+ */
+ if (sd->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) {
+ prefer = sd;
+
+ /*
+ * fallback_cpu should be one
+ * in the closest domain among
+ * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains,
+ * in case that more than one
+ * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains
+ * exist in the hierachy.
+ */
+ if (fallback_cpu == -1)
+ fallback_cpu = best_cpu;
+ continue;
+ }
rcu_read_unlock();
return best_cpu;
}
@@ -1393,6 +1438,29 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
rcu_read_unlock();
/*
+ * If fallback_cpu is valid, all our guesses failed *except* for
+ * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domain. Now, we can return the fallback cpu.
+ *
+ * XXX: Consider the following example, 4 cores SMT2 system:
+ *
+ * LLC [0 - 7]
+ * SMT [0 1][2 3][4 5][6 7]
+ * o x o x x x x x
+ *
+ * where 'o': occupied and 'x': empty.
+ *
+ * A wakeup on cpu0 will exclude cpu1 and choose cpu3, since
+ * cpu1 is in a SD_PREFER_SIBLING sd and cpu3 is not. However,
+ * in this case, cpu4 would have been a better choice, since
+ * cpu3 is a (SMT) thread of an already loaded core.
+ *
+ * Doing it 'right' is difficult and expensive. The current
+ * solution is an acceptable approximation.
+ */
+ if (fallback_cpu != -1)
+ return fallback_cpu;
+
+ /*
* At this point, all our guesses failed, we just return
* 'something', and let the caller sort the things out.
*/
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [RESEND PATCH v11 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
2017-10-10 6:37 ` [RESEND PATCH v11 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() Byungchul Park
@ 2017-10-23 8:44 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-27 8:39 ` Byungchul Park
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Byungchul Park @ 2017-10-23 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, rostedt; +Cc: linux-kernel, juri.lelli, kernel-team
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 03:37:53PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> It would be better to try to check other siblings first if
> SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration.
Is there any opinion about this patch? Could you consider this?
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
> Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 0223694..d619c07 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1319,12 +1319,35 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_earliest_pushable_dl_task(struct rq *rq, int cpu
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, local_cpu_mask_dl);
>
> +/*
> + * Find the first cpu in: mask & sd & ~prefer
> + */
> +static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
> + const struct sched_domain *sd,
> + const struct sched_domain *prefer)
> +{
> + const struct cpumask *sds = sched_domain_span(sd);
> + const struct cpumask *ps = prefer ? sched_domain_span(prefer) : NULL;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sds))
> + continue;
> + if (ps && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, ps))
> + continue;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return cpu;
> +}
> +
> static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> {
> - struct sched_domain *sd;
> + struct sched_domain *sd, *prefer = NULL;
> struct cpumask *later_mask = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(local_cpu_mask_dl);
> int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> int cpu = task_cpu(task);
> + int fallback_cpu = -1;
>
> /* Make sure the mask is initialized first */
> if (unlikely(!later_mask))
> @@ -1376,15 +1399,37 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> return this_cpu;
> }
>
> - best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(later_mask,
> - sched_domain_span(sd));
> /*
> - * Last chance: if a cpu being in both later_mask
> - * and current sd span is valid, that becomes our
> - * choice. Of course, the latest possible cpu is
> - * already under consideration through later_mask.
> + * If a cpu exists that is in the later_mask and
> + * the current sd span, but not in the prefer sd
> + * span, then that becomes our choice.
> + *
> + * Of course, the latest possible cpu is already
> + * under consideration through later_mask.
> */
> + best_cpu = find_cpu(later_mask, sd, prefer);
> +
> if (best_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
> + /*
> + * If current domain is SD_PREFER_SIBLING
> + * flaged, we have to try to check other
> + * siblings first.
> + */
> + if (sd->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) {
> + prefer = sd;
> +
> + /*
> + * fallback_cpu should be one
> + * in the closest domain among
> + * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains,
> + * in case that more than one
> + * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains
> + * exist in the hierachy.
> + */
> + if (fallback_cpu == -1)
> + fallback_cpu = best_cpu;
> + continue;
> + }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return best_cpu;
> }
> @@ -1393,6 +1438,29 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> /*
> + * If fallback_cpu is valid, all our guesses failed *except* for
> + * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domain. Now, we can return the fallback cpu.
> + *
> + * XXX: Consider the following example, 4 cores SMT2 system:
> + *
> + * LLC [0 - 7]
> + * SMT [0 1][2 3][4 5][6 7]
> + * o x o x x x x x
> + *
> + * where 'o': occupied and 'x': empty.
> + *
> + * A wakeup on cpu0 will exclude cpu1 and choose cpu3, since
> + * cpu1 is in a SD_PREFER_SIBLING sd and cpu3 is not. However,
> + * in this case, cpu4 would have been a better choice, since
> + * cpu3 is a (SMT) thread of an already loaded core.
> + *
> + * Doing it 'right' is difficult and expensive. The current
> + * solution is an acceptable approximation.
> + */
> + if (fallback_cpu != -1)
> + return fallback_cpu;
> +
> + /*
> * At this point, all our guesses failed, we just return
> * 'something', and let the caller sort the things out.
> */
> --
> 1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [RESEND PATCH v11 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
2017-10-10 6:37 ` [RESEND PATCH v11 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-10-23 8:44 ` Byungchul Park
@ 2017-10-27 8:39 ` Byungchul Park
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Byungchul Park @ 2017-10-27 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, rostedt; +Cc: linux-kernel, juri.lelli, kernel-team
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 03:37:53PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> It would be better to try to check other siblings first if
> SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration.
Hello everyone,
Could you tell me opinions?
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
> Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 0223694..d619c07 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1319,12 +1319,35 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_earliest_pushable_dl_task(struct rq *rq, int cpu
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, local_cpu_mask_dl);
>
> +/*
> + * Find the first cpu in: mask & sd & ~prefer
> + */
> +static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
> + const struct sched_domain *sd,
> + const struct sched_domain *prefer)
> +{
> + const struct cpumask *sds = sched_domain_span(sd);
> + const struct cpumask *ps = prefer ? sched_domain_span(prefer) : NULL;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sds))
> + continue;
> + if (ps && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, ps))
> + continue;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return cpu;
> +}
> +
> static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> {
> - struct sched_domain *sd;
> + struct sched_domain *sd, *prefer = NULL;
> struct cpumask *later_mask = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(local_cpu_mask_dl);
> int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> int cpu = task_cpu(task);
> + int fallback_cpu = -1;
>
> /* Make sure the mask is initialized first */
> if (unlikely(!later_mask))
> @@ -1376,15 +1399,37 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> return this_cpu;
> }
>
> - best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(later_mask,
> - sched_domain_span(sd));
> /*
> - * Last chance: if a cpu being in both later_mask
> - * and current sd span is valid, that becomes our
> - * choice. Of course, the latest possible cpu is
> - * already under consideration through later_mask.
> + * If a cpu exists that is in the later_mask and
> + * the current sd span, but not in the prefer sd
> + * span, then that becomes our choice.
> + *
> + * Of course, the latest possible cpu is already
> + * under consideration through later_mask.
> */
> + best_cpu = find_cpu(later_mask, sd, prefer);
> +
> if (best_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
> + /*
> + * If current domain is SD_PREFER_SIBLING
> + * flaged, we have to try to check other
> + * siblings first.
> + */
> + if (sd->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) {
> + prefer = sd;
> +
> + /*
> + * fallback_cpu should be one
> + * in the closest domain among
> + * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains,
> + * in case that more than one
> + * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains
> + * exist in the hierachy.
> + */
> + if (fallback_cpu == -1)
> + fallback_cpu = best_cpu;
> + continue;
> + }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return best_cpu;
> }
> @@ -1393,6 +1438,29 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> /*
> + * If fallback_cpu is valid, all our guesses failed *except* for
> + * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domain. Now, we can return the fallback cpu.
> + *
> + * XXX: Consider the following example, 4 cores SMT2 system:
> + *
> + * LLC [0 - 7]
> + * SMT [0 1][2 3][4 5][6 7]
> + * o x o x x x x x
> + *
> + * where 'o': occupied and 'x': empty.
> + *
> + * A wakeup on cpu0 will exclude cpu1 and choose cpu3, since
> + * cpu1 is in a SD_PREFER_SIBLING sd and cpu3 is not. However,
> + * in this case, cpu4 would have been a better choice, since
> + * cpu3 is a (SMT) thread of an already loaded core.
> + *
> + * Doing it 'right' is difficult and expensive. The current
> + * solution is an acceptable approximation.
> + */
> + if (fallback_cpu != -1)
> + return fallback_cpu;
> +
> + /*
> * At this point, all our guesses failed, we just return
> * 'something', and let the caller sort the things out.
> */
> --
> 1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [RESEND PATCH v11 2/2] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq()
2017-10-10 6:37 [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 6:37 ` [RESEND PATCH v11 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() Byungchul Park
@ 2017-10-10 6:37 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-12 8:00 ` [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Byungchul Park @ 2017-10-10 6:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, rostedt; +Cc: linux-kernel, juri.lelli, kernel-team
It would be better to try to check other siblings first if
SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration.
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
---
kernel/sched/rt.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 77 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
index 979b734..a32e36d 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
@@ -1618,12 +1618,35 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_highest_pushable_task(struct rq *rq, int cpu)
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, local_cpu_mask);
+/*
+ * Find the first cpu in: mask & sd & ~prefer
+ */
+static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
+ const struct sched_domain *sd,
+ const struct sched_domain *prefer)
+{
+ const struct cpumask *sds = sched_domain_span(sd);
+ const struct cpumask *ps = prefer ? sched_domain_span(prefer) : NULL;
+ int cpu;
+
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
+ if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sds))
+ continue;
+ if (ps && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, ps))
+ continue;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ return cpu;
+}
+
static int find_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task)
{
- struct sched_domain *sd;
+ struct sched_domain *sd, *prefer = NULL;
struct cpumask *lowest_mask = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(local_cpu_mask);
int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
int cpu = task_cpu(task);
+ int fallback_cpu = -1;
/* Make sure the mask is initialized first */
if (unlikely(!lowest_mask))
@@ -1668,9 +1691,37 @@ static int find_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task)
return this_cpu;
}
- best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(lowest_mask,
- sched_domain_span(sd));
+ /*
+ * If a cpu exists that is in the lowest_mask and
+ * the current sd span, but not in the prefer sd
+ * span, then that becomes our choice.
+ *
+ * Of course, the lowest possible cpu is already
+ * under consideration through lowest_mask.
+ */
+ best_cpu = find_cpu(lowest_mask, sd, prefer);
+
if (best_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
+ /*
+ * If current domain is SD_PREFER_SIBLING
+ * flaged, we have to try to check other
+ * siblings first.
+ */
+ if (sd->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) {
+ prefer = sd;
+
+ /*
+ * fallback_cpu should be one
+ * in the closest domain among
+ * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains,
+ * in case that more than one
+ * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains
+ * exist in the hierachy.
+ */
+ if (fallback_cpu == -1)
+ fallback_cpu = best_cpu;
+ continue;
+ }
rcu_read_unlock();
return best_cpu;
}
@@ -1679,6 +1730,29 @@ static int find_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task)
rcu_read_unlock();
/*
+ * If fallback_cpu is valid, all our guesses failed *except* for
+ * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domain. Now, we can return the fallback cpu.
+ *
+ * XXX: Consider the following example, 4 cores SMT2 system:
+ *
+ * LLC [0 - 7]
+ * SMT [0 1][2 3][4 5][6 7]
+ * o x o x x x x x
+ *
+ * where 'o': occupied and 'x': empty.
+ *
+ * A wakeup on cpu0 will exclude cpu1 and choose cpu3, since
+ * cpu1 is in a SD_PREFER_SIBLING sd and cpu3 is not. However,
+ * in this case, cpu4 would have been a better choice, since
+ * cpu3 is a (SMT) thread of an already loaded core.
+ *
+ * Doing it 'right' is difficult and expensive. The current
+ * solution is an acceptable approximation.
+ */
+ if (fallback_cpu != -1)
+ return fallback_cpu;
+
+ /*
* And finally, if there were no matches within the domains
* just give the caller *something* to work with from the compatible
* locations.
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology
2017-10-10 6:37 [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 6:37 ` [RESEND PATCH v11 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 6:37 ` [RESEND PATCH v11 2/2] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq() Byungchul Park
@ 2017-10-12 8:00 ` Byungchul Park
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Byungchul Park @ 2017-10-12 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, rostedt; +Cc: linux-kernel, juri.lelli, kernel-team
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 03:37:52PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
Any problem with this? Peter, you suggested and I implemented it.
Did I do in a wrong way?
> Change from v10
> -. modify a comment a bit as Steven suggested
>
> Change from v9
> -. modify a comment a bit so to be more clear as Juri suggested
>
> Change from v8
> -. add suggested-by Peterz
> -. add several comments
>
> Change from v7
> -. fix a trivial typo
> -. modify commit messages to explain what it does more clearly
> -. simplify code with an existing macro
>
> Change from v6
> -. add a comment about selection of fallback_cpu incase more than one exist
> -. modify a comment explaining what we do wrt PREFER_SIBLING
>
> Change from v5
> -. exclude two patches already picked up by peterz
> (sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology)
> (sched/deadline: Change return value of cpudl_find())
> -. apply what peterz fixed for 'prefer sibling', into deadline and rt
>
> Change from v4
> -. remove a patch that might cause huge lock contention
> (by spin lock(&cpudl.lock) in a hot path of scheduler)
>
> Change from v3
> -. rename closest_cpu to best_cpu so that it align with rt
> -. protect referring cpudl.elements with cpudl.lock
> -. change return value of cpudl_find() to bool
>
> Change from v2
> -. add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING
>
> Change from v1
> -. clean up the patch
>
> Byungchul Park (2):
> sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
> sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq()
>
> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> kernel/sched/rt.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology
@ 2017-11-02 1:25 Byungchul Park
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Byungchul Park @ 2017-11-02 1:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, rostedt
Cc: tglx, raistlin, linux-kernel, juri.lelli, kernel-team
Change from v10
-. modify a comment a bit as Steven suggested
Change from v9
-. modify a comment a bit so to be more clear as Juri suggested
Change from v8
-. add suggested-by Peterz
-. add several comments
Change from v7
-. fix a trivial typo
-. modify commit messages to explain what it does more clearly
-. simplify code with an existing macro
Change from v6
-. add a comment about selection of fallback_cpu incase more than one exist
-. modify a comment explaining what we do wrt PREFER_SIBLING
Change from v5
-. exclude two patches already picked up by peterz
(sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology)
(sched/deadline: Change return value of cpudl_find())
-. apply what peterz fixed for 'prefer sibling', into deadline and rt
Change from v4
-. remove a patch that might cause huge lock contention
(by spin lock(&cpudl.lock) in a hot path of scheduler)
Change from v3
-. rename closest_cpu to best_cpu so that it align with rt
-. protect referring cpudl.elements with cpudl.lock
-. change return value of cpudl_find() to bool
Change from v2
-. add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING
Change from v1
-. clean up the patch
Byungchul Park (2):
sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq()
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
kernel/sched/rt.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology
@ 2017-12-19 1:20 Byungchul Park
2017-12-22 6:53 ` Byungchul Park
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Byungchul Park @ 2017-12-19 1:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, rostedt
Cc: tglx, raistlin, linux-kernel, juri.lelli, bristot, kernel-team
Change from v10
-. modify a comment a bit as Steven suggested
Change from v9
-. modify a comment a bit so to be more clear as Juri suggested
Change from v8
-. add suggested-by Peterz
-. add several comments
Change from v7
-. fix a trivial typo
-. modify commit messages to explain what it does more clearly
-. simplify code with an existing macro
Change from v6
-. add a comment about selection of fallback_cpu incase more than one exist
-. modify a comment explaining what we do wrt PREFER_SIBLING
Change from v5
-. exclude two patches already picked up by peterz
(sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology)
(sched/deadline: Change return value of cpudl_find())
-. apply what peterz fixed for 'prefer sibling', into deadline and rt
Change from v4
-. remove a patch that might cause huge lock contention
(by spin lock(&cpudl.lock) in a hot path of scheduler)
Change from v3
-. rename closest_cpu to best_cpu so that it align with rt
-. protect referring cpudl.elements with cpudl.lock
-. change return value of cpudl_find() to bool
Change from v2
-. add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING
Change from v1
-. clean up the patch
Byungchul Park (2):
sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq()
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
kernel/sched/rt.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology
2017-12-19 1:20 Byungchul Park
@ 2017-12-22 6:53 ` Byungchul Park
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Byungchul Park @ 2017-12-22 6:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, rostedt
Cc: tglx, raistlin, linux-kernel, juri.lelli, bristot, kernel-team
Hello, shall I stop sending this? Let me know if so.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:20:13AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Change from v10
> -. modify a comment a bit as Steven suggested
>
> Change from v9
> -. modify a comment a bit so to be more clear as Juri suggested
>
> Change from v8
> -. add suggested-by Peterz
> -. add several comments
>
> Change from v7
> -. fix a trivial typo
> -. modify commit messages to explain what it does more clearly
> -. simplify code with an existing macro
>
> Change from v6
> -. add a comment about selection of fallback_cpu incase more than one exist
> -. modify a comment explaining what we do wrt PREFER_SIBLING
>
> Change from v5
> -. exclude two patches already picked up by peterz
> (sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology)
> (sched/deadline: Change return value of cpudl_find())
> -. apply what peterz fixed for 'prefer sibling', into deadline and rt
>
> Change from v4
> -. remove a patch that might cause huge lock contention
> (by spin lock(&cpudl.lock) in a hot path of scheduler)
>
> Change from v3
> -. rename closest_cpu to best_cpu so that it align with rt
> -. protect referring cpudl.elements with cpudl.lock
> -. change return value of cpudl_find() to bool
>
> Change from v2
> -. add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING
>
> Change from v1
> -. clean up the patch
>
> Byungchul Park (2):
> sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
> sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq()
>
> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> kernel/sched/rt.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology
@ 2017-12-28 23:32 Byungchul Park
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Byungchul Park @ 2017-12-28 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, rostedt
Cc: tglx, raistlin, linux-kernel, juri.lelli, bristot, kernel-team
Change from v10
-. modify a comment a bit as Steven suggested
Change from v9
-. modify a comment a bit so to be more clear as Juri suggested
Change from v8
-. add suggested-by Peterz
-. add several comments
Change from v7
-. fix a trivial typo
-. modify commit messages to explain what it does more clearly
-. simplify code with an existing macro
Change from v6
-. add a comment about selection of fallback_cpu incase more than one exist
-. modify a comment explaining what we do wrt PREFER_SIBLING
Change from v5
-. exclude two patches already picked up by peterz
(sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology)
(sched/deadline: Change return value of cpudl_find())
-. apply what peterz fixed for 'prefer sibling', into deadline and rt
Change from v4
-. remove a patch that might cause huge lock contention
(by spin lock(&cpudl.lock) in a hot path of scheduler)
Change from v3
-. rename closest_cpu to best_cpu so that it align with rt
-. protect referring cpudl.elements with cpudl.lock
-. change return value of cpudl_find() to bool
Change from v2
-. add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING
Change from v1
-. clean up the patch
Byungchul Park (2):
sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq()
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
kernel/sched/rt.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology
@ 2018-01-08 6:14 Byungchul Park
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Byungchul Park @ 2018-01-08 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, rostedt
Cc: tglx, raistlin, linux-kernel, juri.lelli, bristot, kernel-team
Change from v10
-. modify a comment a bit as Steven suggested
Change from v9
-. modify a comment a bit so to be more clear as Juri suggested
Change from v8
-. add suggested-by Peterz
-. add several comments
Change from v7
-. fix a trivial typo
-. modify commit messages to explain what it does more clearly
-. simplify code with an existing macro
Change from v6
-. add a comment about selection of fallback_cpu incase more than one exist
-. modify a comment explaining what we do wrt PREFER_SIBLING
Change from v5
-. exclude two patches already picked up by peterz
(sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology)
(sched/deadline: Change return value of cpudl_find())
-. apply what peterz fixed for 'prefer sibling', into deadline and rt
Change from v4
-. remove a patch that might cause huge lock contention
(by spin lock(&cpudl.lock) in a hot path of scheduler)
Change from v3
-. rename closest_cpu to best_cpu so that it align with rt
-. protect referring cpudl.elements with cpudl.lock
-. change return value of cpudl_find() to bool
Change from v2
-. add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING
Change from v1
-. clean up the patch
Byungchul Park (2):
sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq()
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
kernel/sched/rt.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology
@ 2018-05-09 6:44 Byungchul Park
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Byungchul Park @ 2018-05-09 6:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, rostedt
Cc: tglx, raistlin, linux-kernel, juri.lelli, bristot, kernel-team
Change from v10
-. modify a comment a bit as Steven suggested
Change from v9
-. modify a comment a bit so to be more clear as Juri suggested
Change from v8
-. add suggested-by Peterz
-. add several comments
Change from v7
-. fix a trivial typo
-. modify commit messages to explain what it does more clearly
-. simplify code with an existing macro
Change from v6
-. add a comment about selection of fallback_cpu incase more than one exist
-. modify a comment explaining what we do wrt PREFER_SIBLING
Change from v5
-. exclude two patches already picked up by peterz
(sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology)
(sched/deadline: Change return value of cpudl_find())
-. apply what peterz fixed for 'prefer sibling', into deadline and rt
Change from v4
-. remove a patch that might cause huge lock contention
(by spin lock(&cpudl.lock) in a hot path of scheduler)
Change from v3
-. rename closest_cpu to best_cpu so that it align with rt
-. protect referring cpudl.elements with cpudl.lock
-. change return value of cpudl_find() to bool
Change from v2
-. add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING
Change from v1
-. clean up the patch
Byungchul Park (2):
sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq()
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
kernel/sched/rt.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-05-09 6:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-10-10 6:37 [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 6:37 ` [RESEND PATCH v11 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-10-23 8:44 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-27 8:39 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 6:37 ` [RESEND PATCH v11 2/2] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-10-12 8:00 ` [RESEND PATCH v11 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2017-11-02 1:25 Byungchul Park
2017-12-19 1:20 Byungchul Park
2017-12-22 6:53 ` Byungchul Park
2017-12-28 23:32 Byungchul Park
2018-01-08 6:14 Byungchul Park
2018-05-09 6:44 Byungchul Park
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.