Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: consider sched-idle CPU when selecting idle core

[Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 20:36, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 18:34, Vincent Guittot
> > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 10:12, Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:24, Vincent Guittot
> > > > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 01:39, Jiang Biao <humjb_1983@163.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sched-idle CPU has been considered in select_idle_cpu and
> > > > > > select_idle_smt, it also needs to be considered in select_idle_core to
> > > > > > be consistent and keep the same *idle* policy.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the case of select_idle_core, we are looking for a core that is
> > > > > fully idle but if one CPU of the core is running a sched_idle task,
> > > > > the core will not be idle and we might end up having  the wakeup task
> > > > > on a CPU and a sched_idle task on another CPU of the core which is not
> > > > > what we want
> > > > Got it. sched_idle task may interfere its sibling, which brings me
> > > > another question,
> > > > If there's a core with smt1 running sched_idle task and smt2 idle,
> > > > selecting smt1
> > > > rather than smt2 should be more helpful for wakee task, because wakee task
> > > > could suppress the sched_idle task without neighbour interfering.
> > >
> > > But the sched_idle will then probably quickly move on the idle smt2
> > >
> > > > And there seems to be no consideration about that currently.
> > > > Is it worth improving that?
> > >
> > > This will complexify and extend the duration of the search loop  and
> > > as mentioned above, it will most probably be a nop at the end because
> > > of sched_idle task moving on smt2
> > Indeed, the complexity is not worth.
> > Thanks for the explanation.
>
> BTW., if you disagree then you could add a bit of debug
> instrumentation to measure to what extent it's a nop at the end of the
> search loop, to turn the "most probably" statement into a specific
> number.
>
> Thanks,
>
>         Ingo
Ok, I'll try.
Thanks for your reply.

Regards,
Jiang