From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 15:18:00 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core Message-Id: List-Id: References: <1603211879-1064-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> <20201021112038.GC32041@suse.de> <20201021122532.GA30733@vingu-book> <20201021124700.GE32041@suse.de> <20201021131827.GF32041@suse.de> <20201021150800.GG32041@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20201021150800.GG32041@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Mel Gorman Cc: Vincent Guittot , Ingo Molnar , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Daniel Bristot de Oliveira , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Valentin Schneider , Gilles Muller On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 03:24:48PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > I worry it's overkill because prev is always used if it is idle even > > > if it is on a node remote to the waker. It cuts off the option of a > > > wakee moving to a CPU local to the waker which is not equivalent to the > > > original behaviour. > > > > But it is equal to the original behavior in the idle prev case if you go > > back to the runnable load average days... > > > > It is similar but it misses the sync treatment and sd->imbalance_pct part of > wake_affine_weight which has unpredictable consequences. The data > available is only on the fully utilised case. OK, what if my patch were: @@ -5800,6 +5800,9 @@ wake_affine_idle(int this_cpu, int prev_cpu, int sync) if (sync && cpu_rq(this_cpu)->nr_running = 1) return this_cpu; + if (!sync && available_idle_cpu(prev_cpu)) + return prev_cpu; + return nr_cpumask_bits; } The sd->imbalance_pct part would have previously been a multiplication by 0, so it doesn't need to be taken into account. julia > > > The problem seems impossible to solve, because there is no way to know by > > looking only at prev and this whether the thread would prefer to stay > > where it was or go to the waker. > > > > Yes, this is definitely true. Looking at prev_cpu and this_cpu is a > crude approximation and the path is heavily limited in terms of how > clever it can be. > > -- > Mel Gorman > SUSE Labs >