From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752601AbdLUKBj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:01:39 -0500
Received: from mail-it0-f66.google.com ([209.85.214.66]:46565 "EHLO
        mail-it0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752076AbdLUKBh (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:01:37 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouCXe47zWs5fwaPaGis+zR52xpAQWY2cEF1Uwn2QR2+d0cjLl7bqdR8rk71UN5MNDO8iUydbbWcSrmtU2OI+8I=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtC0Seb3MDDSv-ZASLUfvrTkZta_jSDR9DVM4QMW_0ohPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20171201180157.18937-1-brendan.jackman@arm.com>
 <20171201180157.18937-2-brendan.jackman@arm.com> <20171220140906.oied65gn6afvvafc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKfTPtC0Seb3MDDSv-ZASLUfvrTkZta_jSDR9DVM4QMW_0ohPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:01:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBt300QnodhodrzbN5M0Ka8TqjC5G6a_rAVOUH43_1yYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: force update of blocked load of idle cpus
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 20 December 2017 at 15:27, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 20 December 2017 at 15:09, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 06:01:56PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote:
>>
>>> @@ -9210,7 +9256,15 @@ static void nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, enum cpu_idle_type idle)
>>>                       cpu_load_update_idle(rq);
>>>                       rq_unlock_irq(rq, &rf);
>>>
>>> -                     rebalance_domains(rq, CPU_IDLE);
>>> +                     update_blocked_averages(balance_cpu);
>>> +                     /*
>>> +                      * This idle load balance softirq may have been
>>> +                      * triggered only to update the blocked load and shares
>>> +                      * of idle CPUs (which we have just done for
>>> +                      * balance_cpu). In that case skip the actual balance.
>>> +                      */
>>> +                     if (!in_nohz_stats_kick(this_cpu))
>>> +                             rebalance_domains(rq, idle);
>>>               }
>>>
>>>               if (time_after(next_balance, rq->next_balance)) {
>>
>>> @@ -9336,7 +9396,12 @@ static __latent_entropy void run_rebalance_domains(struct softirq_action *h)
>>>        * and abort nohz_idle_balance altogether if we pull some load.
>>>        */
>>>       nohz_idle_balance(this_rq, idle);
>>> -     rebalance_domains(this_rq, idle);
>>> +     update_blocked_averages(this_rq->cpu);
>>> +     if (!in_nohz_stats_kick(this_rq->cpu))
>>> +             rebalance_domains(this_rq, idle);
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
>>> +     clear_bit(NOHZ_STATS_KICK, nohz_flags(this_rq->cpu));
>>> +#endif
>>>  }
>>>
>>>  /*
>>
>> You're doing the same thing to both (all) callsites of
>> rebalance_domains(), does that not suggest doing it inside and leaving
>> update_blocked_averages() where it is?
>
> The goal of moving update_blocked_averages() outside rebalance_domains
> is to not add a new parameter or use a special  cpu_idle_type value in
> rebalance_domains parameters in order to abort the rebalance sequence
> just after updating blocked load

Peter,
Is the reason above reasonable or you prefer update_blocked_averages
to stay in rebalance_domains ?

>
>>
>>