Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Consider SMT in ASYM_PACKING load balance

[Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:17:28PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 09:11:07PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > @@ -8507,6 +8619,10 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
> >  	if (!sgs->sum_h_nr_running)
> >  		return false;
> >  
> > +	if (sgs->group_type == group_asym_packing &&
> > +	    !asym_can_pull_tasks(env->dst_cpu, sds, sgs, sg))
> > +		return false;
> 
> All of this makes my head hurt; but afaict this isn't right.
> 
> Your update_sg_lb_stats() change makes that we unconditionally set
> sgs->group_asym_packing, and then this is to undo that. But it's not
> clear this covers all cases right.

We could not make a decision to set sgs->group_asym_packing in
update_sg_lb_stats() because we don't have information about the dst_cpu
and its SMT siblings if any. That is the reason I proposed to delay the
decision to update_sd_pick_busiest(), where we can compare local and
sgs.
> 
> Even if !sched_asym_prefer(), we could end up selecting this sg as
> busiest, but you're just bailing out here.

Even if sgs->group_asym_packing is unconditionally set, sgs can still
be classified as group_overloaded and group_imbalanced. In such cases
we wouldn't bailout. sgs could not be classified as group_fully_busy
or group_has_spare and we would bailout, though. Is your concern about
these? I can fixup these two cases.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo
>