From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> To: "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> Cc: "valentin.schneider@arm.com" <valentin.schneider@arm.com>, "catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>, "rjw@rjwysocki.net" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, "vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, "lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>, "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>, "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>, "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>, "juri.lelli@redhat.com" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, "rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>, "bsegall@google.com" <bsegall@google.com>, "mgorman@suse.de" <mgorman@suse.de>, "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>, "sudeep.holla@arm.com" <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, "aubrey.li@linux.intel.com" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, "linuxarm@openeuler.org" <linuxarm@openeuler.org>, "xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@huawei.com>, "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>, "tiantao (H)" <tiantao6@hisilicon.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and add cluster scheduler Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:02:21 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bf0edcb6-6dc7-5591-35ac-08e94bf7dce9@arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <076088f4daf64727b1587b162eb08dda@hisilicon.com> On 25/01/2021 11:50, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dietmar Eggemann [mailto:dietmar.eggemann@arm.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 12:00 AM >> To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>; Tim Chen >> <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>; >> valentin.schneider@arm.com; catalin.marinas@arm.com; will@kernel.org; >> rjw@rjwysocki.net; vincent.guittot@linaro.org; lenb@kernel.org; >> gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>; >> mingo@redhat.com; peterz@infradead.org; juri.lelli@redhat.com; >> rostedt@goodmis.org; bsegall@google.com; mgorman@suse.de; >> mark.rutland@arm.com; sudeep.holla@arm.com; aubrey.li@linux.intel.com; >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; >> linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linuxarm@openeuler.org; xuwei (O) >> <xuwei5@huawei.com>; Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>; tiantao (H) >> <tiantao6@hisilicon.com> >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and >> add cluster scheduler >> >> On 11/01/2021 10:28, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 12:22:41PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/8/21 7:12 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 03:16:47PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/21 12:30 AM, Barry Song wrote: [...] >> wake_wide() switches between packing (select_idle_sibling(), llc_size >> CPUs) and spreading (find_idlest_cpu(), all CPUs). >> >> AFAICS, since none of the sched domains set SD_BALANCE_WAKE, currently >> all wakeups are (llc-)packed. > > Sorry for late response. I was struggling with some other topology > issues recently. > > For "all wakeups are (llc-)packed", > it seems you mean current want_affine is only affecting the new_cpu, > and for wake-up path, we will always go to select_idle_sibling() rather > than find_idlest_cpu() since nobody sets SD_WAKE_BALANCE in any > sched_domain ? > >> >> select_task_rq_fair() >> >> for_each_domain(cpu, tmp) >> >> if (tmp->flags & sd_flag) >> sd = tmp; >> >> >> In case we would like to further distinguish between llc-packing and >> even narrower (cluster or MC-L2)-packing, we would introduce a 2. level >> packing vs. spreading heuristic further down in sis(). > > I didn't get your point on "2 level packing". Would you like > to describe more? It seems you mean we need to have separate > calculation for avg_scan_cost and sched_feat(SIS_) for cluster > (or MC-L2) since cluster and llc are not in the same level > physically? By '1. level packing' I meant going sis() (i.e. sd=per_cpu(sd_llc, target)) instead of routing WF_TTWU through find_idlest_cpu() which uses a broader sd span (in case all sd's (or at least up to an sd > llc) would have SD_BALANCE_WAKE set). wake_wide() (wakee/waker flip heuristic) is currently used to make this decision. But since no sd sets SD_BALANCE_WAKE we always go sis() for WF_TTWU. '2. level packing' would be the decision between cluster- and llc-packing. The question was which heuristic could be used here. >> IMHO, Barry's current implementation doesn't do this right now. Instead >> he's trying to pack on cluster first and if not successful look further >> among the remaining llc CPUs for an idle CPU. > > Yes. That is exactly what the current patch is doing. And this will be favoring cluster- over llc-packing for each task instead.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> To: "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> Cc: "juri.lelli@redhat.com" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>, "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>, "catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, "bsegall@google.com" <bsegall@google.com>, "xuwei \(O\)" <xuwei5@huawei.com>, "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>, "vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, "aubrey.li@linux.intel.com" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>, "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>, "mgorman@suse.de" <mgorman@suse.de>, "valentin.schneider@arm.com" <valentin.schneider@arm.com>, "lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>, "linuxarm@openeuler.org" <linuxarm@openeuler.org>, "rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>, "Zengtao \(B\)" <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>, Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, "rjw@rjwysocki.net" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "sudeep.holla@arm.com" <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, "tiantao \(H\)" <tiantao6@hisilicon.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and add cluster scheduler Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:02:21 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bf0edcb6-6dc7-5591-35ac-08e94bf7dce9@arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <076088f4daf64727b1587b162eb08dda@hisilicon.com> On 25/01/2021 11:50, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dietmar Eggemann [mailto:dietmar.eggemann@arm.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 12:00 AM >> To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>; Tim Chen >> <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>; >> valentin.schneider@arm.com; catalin.marinas@arm.com; will@kernel.org; >> rjw@rjwysocki.net; vincent.guittot@linaro.org; lenb@kernel.org; >> gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>; >> mingo@redhat.com; peterz@infradead.org; juri.lelli@redhat.com; >> rostedt@goodmis.org; bsegall@google.com; mgorman@suse.de; >> mark.rutland@arm.com; sudeep.holla@arm.com; aubrey.li@linux.intel.com; >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; >> linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linuxarm@openeuler.org; xuwei (O) >> <xuwei5@huawei.com>; Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>; tiantao (H) >> <tiantao6@hisilicon.com> >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and >> add cluster scheduler >> >> On 11/01/2021 10:28, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 12:22:41PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/8/21 7:12 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 03:16:47PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/21 12:30 AM, Barry Song wrote: [...] >> wake_wide() switches between packing (select_idle_sibling(), llc_size >> CPUs) and spreading (find_idlest_cpu(), all CPUs). >> >> AFAICS, since none of the sched domains set SD_BALANCE_WAKE, currently >> all wakeups are (llc-)packed. > > Sorry for late response. I was struggling with some other topology > issues recently. > > For "all wakeups are (llc-)packed", > it seems you mean current want_affine is only affecting the new_cpu, > and for wake-up path, we will always go to select_idle_sibling() rather > than find_idlest_cpu() since nobody sets SD_WAKE_BALANCE in any > sched_domain ? > >> >> select_task_rq_fair() >> >> for_each_domain(cpu, tmp) >> >> if (tmp->flags & sd_flag) >> sd = tmp; >> >> >> In case we would like to further distinguish between llc-packing and >> even narrower (cluster or MC-L2)-packing, we would introduce a 2. level >> packing vs. spreading heuristic further down in sis(). > > I didn't get your point on "2 level packing". Would you like > to describe more? It seems you mean we need to have separate > calculation for avg_scan_cost and sched_feat(SIS_) for cluster > (or MC-L2) since cluster and llc are not in the same level > physically? By '1. level packing' I meant going sis() (i.e. sd=per_cpu(sd_llc, target)) instead of routing WF_TTWU through find_idlest_cpu() which uses a broader sd span (in case all sd's (or at least up to an sd > llc) would have SD_BALANCE_WAKE set). wake_wide() (wakee/waker flip heuristic) is currently used to make this decision. But since no sd sets SD_BALANCE_WAKE we always go sis() for WF_TTWU. '2. level packing' would be the decision between cluster- and llc-packing. The question was which heuristic could be used here. >> IMHO, Barry's current implementation doesn't do this right now. Instead >> he's trying to pack on cluster first and if not successful look further >> among the remaining llc CPUs for an idle CPU. > > Yes. That is exactly what the current patch is doing. And this will be favoring cluster- over llc-packing for each task instead. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-26 11:03 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-01-06 8:30 [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and add cluster scheduler Barry Song 2021-01-06 8:30 ` Barry Song 2021-01-06 8:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] topology: Represent clusters of CPUs within a die Barry Song 2021-01-06 8:30 ` Barry Song 2021-02-09 22:48 ` Masayoshi Mizuma 2021-02-09 22:48 ` Masayoshi Mizuma 2021-01-06 8:30 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/2] scheduler: add scheduler level for clusters Barry Song 2021-01-06 8:30 ` Barry Song 2021-01-06 10:14 ` kernel test robot 2021-01-06 16:29 ` Vincent Guittot 2021-01-06 16:29 ` Vincent Guittot 2021-01-06 20:09 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) 2021-01-06 20:09 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) 2021-01-07 23:16 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] scheduler: expose the topology of clusters and add cluster scheduler Tim Chen 2021-01-07 23:16 ` Tim Chen 2021-01-08 15:12 ` Morten Rasmussen 2021-01-08 15:12 ` Morten Rasmussen 2021-01-08 20:22 ` Tim Chen 2021-01-08 20:22 ` Tim Chen 2021-01-11 9:28 ` Morten Rasmussen 2021-01-11 9:28 ` Morten Rasmussen 2021-01-12 11:00 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2021-01-12 11:00 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2021-01-25 10:50 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) 2021-01-25 10:50 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) 2021-01-26 11:02 ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message] 2021-01-26 11:02 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2021-04-13 10:45 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) 2021-04-13 10:45 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) 2021-04-13 19:00 ` Tim Chen 2021-04-13 19:00 ` Tim Chen 2021-01-08 21:30 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) 2021-01-08 21:30 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) 2021-01-12 12:53 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2021-01-12 12:53 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2021-01-25 11:12 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) 2021-01-25 11:12 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) 2021-02-03 11:32 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) 2021-02-03 11:32 ` Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) 2021-02-16 18:04 ` Tim Chen 2021-02-16 18:04 ` Tim Chen
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=bf0edcb6-6dc7-5591-35ac-08e94bf7dce9@arm.com \ --to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \ --cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \ --cc=bsegall@google.com \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \ --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \ --cc=lenb@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linuxarm@openeuler.org \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=mgorman@suse.de \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=prime.zeng@hisilicon.com \ --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \ --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \ --cc=song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com \ --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \ --cc=tiantao6@hisilicon.com \ --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \ --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \ --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ --cc=xuwei5@huawei.com \ /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: linkBe 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.