All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	juri.lelli@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bristot@redhat.com,
	kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 14:16:26 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170804051626.GP20323@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170803120334.dogbysvrfeoseu6v@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:03:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> This one I'm not sure on..  at the very least we should exclude all of
> the prefer sibling domain when we do the next domain, and if there are
> multiple prefer sibling levels, we should only pick the first
> fallback_cpu -- there is no point is overriding it with a possible CPU
> further away.

I agree.

> I implemented that below -- although the find_cpu() function is really
> rather horrible.
> 
> But still this isn't quite right, because when we consider this for SMT
> (as was the intent here) we'll happily occupy a full sibling core over
> finding an empty one.
> 
> Now, the problem is that actually doing the right thing quickly ends up
> very expensive, we'd have to scan the entire cache domain at least once,
> so maybe this is good enough.. no idea :/
> 
> 
> ---
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1793,12 +1793,35 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_earliest
>  
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, local_cpu_mask_dl);
>  
> +/*
> + * Find the first cpu in: mask & sd & ~prefer
                                          ^
                                Yes, I missed it.

> + */
> +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 = -1;
> +
> +	while ((cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, mask)) < nr_cpu_ids) {
> +		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))
> @@ -1850,8 +1873,7 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_str
>  				return this_cpu;
>  			}
>  
> -			best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(later_mask,
> -							sched_domain_span(sd));
> +			best_cpu = find_cpu(later_mask, sd, prefer);
>  			/*
>  			 * Last chance: if a cpu being in both later_mask
>  			 * and current sd span is valid, that becomes our
> @@ -1859,6 +1881,17 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_str
>  			 * already under consideration through later_mask.
>  			 */
>  			if (best_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
> +				/*
> +				 * If current domain is SD_PREFER_SIBLING
> +				 * flaged, we have to get more chances to
> +				 * check other siblings.
> +				 */
> +				if (sd->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) {
> +					prefer = sd;
> +					if (fallback_cpu == -1)
                                        ^
                                     I like the 'if' statement.
                                     I should have done this.

> +						fallback_cpu = best_cpu;
> +					continue;
> +				}
>  				rcu_read_unlock();
>  				return best_cpu;
>  			}

Thank you.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-08-04  5:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-23  2:00 [PATCH v5 0/4] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2017-05-23  2:00 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] sched/deadline: " Byungchul Park
2017-07-12 13:13   ` Juri Lelli
2017-07-13  1:38     ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-10 12:08   ` [tip:sched/core] sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer CPU " tip-bot for Byungchul Park
2017-05-23  2:00 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] sched/deadline: Change return value of cpudl_find() Byungchul Park
2017-07-12 13:22   ` Juri Lelli
2017-07-13  1:24     ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-10 12:08   ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Byungchul Park
2017-05-23  2:00 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-08-03 12:03   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-04  5:16     ` Byungchul Park [this message]
2017-05-23  2:00 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-06-02  2:19 ` [PATCH v5 0/4] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2017-07-12  2:44 ` 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=20170804051626.GP20323@X58A-UD3R \
    --to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --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=rostedt@goodmis.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 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.