From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, raistlin@linux.it,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juri.lelli@gmail.com,
bristot@redhat.com, kernel-team@lge.com, joel@joelfernandes.org
Subject: [PATCH v12 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 17:10:05 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1528099806-30632-2-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1528099806-30632-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
Hello Juri,
I've changed the code a little bit to avoid a compile warning caused by
'const' args of find_cpu(). Can I keep your Acked-by?
BEFORE:
static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
const struct sched_domain *sd,
const struct sched_domain *prefer)
AFTER:
static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
struct sched_domain *sd,
struct sched_domain *prefer)
(I temporarily removed the Acked-by you gave me.)
Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
-----8<-----
>From 5a4753e8c15369420a16fa04026f74ae5c9d377c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 16:46:56 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v12 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on
find_later_rq()
It would be better to try to check other siblings first if
SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration.
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
---
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
index 1356afd..6130d40 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -1853,12 +1853,33 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_earliest_pushable_dl_task(struct rq *rq, int cpu
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, local_cpu_mask_dl);
+/*
+ * Find the first CPU in: mask & sd & ~prefer
+ */
+static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
+ struct sched_domain *sd,
+ struct sched_domain *prefer)
+{
+ int cpu;
+
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
+ if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd)))
+ continue;
+ if (prefer && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(prefer)))
+ continue;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ return cpu;
+}
+
static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
{
- struct sched_domain *sd;
+ struct sched_domain *sd, *prefer = NULL;
struct cpumask *later_mask = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(local_cpu_mask_dl);
int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
int cpu = task_cpu(task);
+ int fallback_cpu = -1;
/* Make sure the mask is initialized first */
if (unlikely(!later_mask))
@@ -1910,15 +1931,37 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
return this_cpu;
}
- best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(later_mask,
- sched_domain_span(sd));
/*
- * Last chance: if a CPU being in both later_mask
- * and current sd span is valid, that becomes our
- * choice. Of course, the latest possible CPU is
- * already under consideration through later_mask.
+ * If a CPU exists that is in the later_mask and
+ * the current sd span, but not in the prefer sd
+ * span, then that becomes our choice.
+ *
+ * Of course, the latest possible CPU is already
+ * under consideration through later_mask.
*/
+ best_cpu = find_cpu(later_mask, sd, prefer);
+
if (best_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
+ /*
+ * If current domain is SD_PREFER_SIBLING
+ * flaged, we have to try to check other
+ * siblings first.
+ */
+ if (sd->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) {
+ prefer = sd;
+
+ /*
+ * fallback_cpu should be one
+ * in the closest domain among
+ * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains,
+ * in case that more than one
+ * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains
+ * exist in the hierachy.
+ */
+ if (fallback_cpu == -1)
+ fallback_cpu = best_cpu;
+ continue;
+ }
rcu_read_unlock();
return best_cpu;
}
@@ -1927,6 +1970,29 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
rcu_read_unlock();
/*
+ * If fallback_cpu is valid, all our guesses failed *except* for
+ * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domain. Now, we can return the fallback CPU.
+ *
+ * XXX: Consider the following example, 4 cores SMT2 system:
+ *
+ * LLC [0 - 7]
+ * SMT [0 1][2 3][4 5][6 7]
+ * o x o x x x x x
+ *
+ * where 'o': occupied and 'x': empty.
+ *
+ * A wakeup on CPU0 will exclude CPU1 and choose CPU3, since
+ * CPU1 is in a SD_PREFER_SIBLING sd and CPU3 is not. However,
+ * in this case, CPU4 would have been a better choice, since
+ * CPU3 is a (SMT) thread of an already loaded core.
+ *
+ * Doing it 'right' is difficult and expensive. The current
+ * solution is an acceptable approximation.
+ */
+ if (fallback_cpu != -1)
+ return fallback_cpu;
+
+ /*
* At this point, all our guesses failed, we just return
* 'something', and let the caller sort the things out.
*/
--
1.9.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-04 8:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-04 8:10 [PATCH v12 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2018-06-04 8:10 ` Byungchul Park [this message]
2018-06-04 8:10 ` [PATCH v12 2/2] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq() Byungchul Park
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=1528099806-30632-2-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com \
--to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=raistlin@linux.it \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).