Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Reduce worst-case scanning of runqueues in select_idle_sibling

[Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>]

On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 04:04:41PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 10:15, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
> >
> > This is a minimal series to reduce the amount of runqueue scanning in
> > select_idle_sibling in the worst case.
> >
> > Patch 1 removes SIS_AVG_CPU because it's unused.
> >
> > Patch 2 improves the hit rate of p->recent_used_cpu to reduce the amount
> >         of scanning. It should be relatively uncontroversial
> >
> > Patch 3-4 scans the runqueues in a single pass for select_idle_core()
> >         and select_idle_cpu() so runqueues are not scanned twice. It's
> >         a tradeoff because it benefits deep scans but introduces overhead
> >         for shallow scans.
> >
> > Even if patch 3-4 is rejected to allow more time for Aubrey's idle cpu mask
> 
> patch 3 looks fine and doesn't collide with Aubrey's work. But I don't
> like patch 4  which manipulates different cpumask including
> load_balance_mask out of LB and I prefer to wait for v6 of Aubrey's
> patchset which should fix the problem of possibly  scanning twice busy
> cpus in select_idle_core and select_idle_cpu
> 

Seems fair, we can see where we stand after V6 of Aubrey's work.  A lot
of the motivation for patch 4 would go away if we managed to avoid calling
select_idle_core() unnecessarily. As it stands, we can call it a lot from
hackbench even though the chance of getting an idle core are minimal.

Assuming I revisit it, I'll update the schedstat debug patches to include
the times select_idle_core() starts versus how many times it fails and
see can I think of a useful heuristic.

I'll wait for more review on patches 1-3 and if I hear nothing, I'll
resend just those.

Thanks Vincent.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs