All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, raistlin@linux.it,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juri.lelli@gmail.com,
	bristot@redhat.com, kernel-team@lge.com, joel@joelfernandes.org
Subject: [RESEND PATCH v12 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:58:08 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1529297889-24551-2-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1529297889-24551-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>

Hello Juri,

I've changed the code a little bit to avoid a compile warning caused by
'const' args of find_cpu(). Can I keep your Acked-by?

BEFORE:
static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
		    const struct sched_domain *sd,
		    const struct sched_domain *prefer)

AFTER:
static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
		    struct sched_domain *sd,
		    struct sched_domain *prefer)

(I temporarily removed the Acked-by you gave me.)
Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>

-----8<-----
From 5a4753e8c15369420a16fa04026f74ae5c9d377c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 16:46:56 +0900
Subject: [RESEND PATCH v12 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on
 find_later_rq()

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>
---
 kernel/sched/deadline.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
index 1356afd..6130d40 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -1853,12 +1853,33 @@ 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,
+		    struct sched_domain *sd,
+		    struct sched_domain *prefer)
+{
+	int cpu;
+
+	for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
+		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd)))
+			continue;
+		if (prefer && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(prefer)))
+			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))
@@ -1910,15 +1931,37 @@ 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;
 			}
@@ -1927,6 +1970,29 @@ 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


  reply	other threads:[~2018-06-18  4:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-18  4:58 [RESEND PATCH v12 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2018-06-18  4:58 ` Byungchul Park [this message]
2018-06-18 21:36   ` [RESEND PATCH v12 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() Steven Rostedt
2018-06-18  4:58 ` [RESEND PATCH v12 2/2] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq() Byungchul Park
2018-06-18 21:42   ` Steven Rostedt
2018-06-19  5:16     ` Byungchul Park
2018-06-20 12:51       ` Byungchul Park
2018-06-26  8:30       ` Byungchul Park

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=1529297889-24551-2-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=juri.lelli@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=raistlin@linux.it \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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 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.