From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750889AbcFBEAm (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2016 00:00:42 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:41945 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750731AbcFBEAl (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2016 00:00:41 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,404,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="819910397" Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 04:03:25 +0800 From: Yuyang Du To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Peter Zijlstra , mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bsegall@google.com, pjt@google.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] sched: Clean up SD_BALANCE_WAKE flags in sched domain build-up Message-ID: <20160601200325.GA18670@intel.com> References: <1464657098-24880-1-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com> <1464657098-24880-2-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com> <20160531092146.GT3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160531013132.GQ18670@intel.com> <1464757633.4023.39.camel@gmail.com> <20160601000105.GU18670@intel.com> <1464773799.4023.72.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1464773799.4023.72.camel@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 11:36:39AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Yup. Up to this point, we don't have any disagreement. And I don't think we > > have any disagreement conceptually. What the next patch really does is: > > > > (1) we don't remove SD_BALANCE_WAKE as an important sched_domain flag, on > > the contrary, we strengthen it. > > > > (2) the semantic of SD_BALANCE_WAKE is currently represented by SD_WAKE_AFFINE, > > we actually remove this representation. > > Nope, those two have different meanings. We pass SD_BALANCE_WAKE to > identify a ttwu() wakeup, just as we pass SD_BALANCE_FORK to say we're > waking a child. SD_WAKE_AFFINE means exactly what it says, but is only > applicable to ttwu() wakeups. I don't disagree, but want to add that, SD_WAKE_AFFINE has no meaning that is so special and so important for anyone to use the flag to tune anything. If you want to do any SD_BALANCE_*, waker CPU is a valid candidate if allowed, that is it. IIUC your XXX mark and your comment "Prefer wake_affine over balance flags", you said the same thing: SD_WAKE_AFFINE should be part of SD_BALANCE_WAKE, and should be part of all SD_BALANCE_* flags, > > (3) regarding the semantic of SD_WAKE_AFFINE, it is really not about selecting > > waker CPU or about the fast path. Conceptually, it is just saying the waker > > CPU is a valid and important candidate if SD_BALANCE_WAKE, which is just so > > obvious, so I don't think it deserves to be a separate sched_domain flag. > > SD_WAKE_AFFINE being a separate domain flag, the user can turn it > on/off... separately :) Sure, that is very true, :) But turning it off for what, that is a big question mark. We don't want a flag unless the flag is for goodness, and not a flag with big question mark. > > (4) the outcome is, if SD_BALANCE_WAKE, we definitely will/should try waker CPU, > > and if !SD_BALANCE_WAKE, we don't try waker CPU. So nothing functional is > > changed. > > If wake_wide() says we do not want an affine wakeup, but you apply > SD_WAKE_AFFINE meaning to SD_BALANCE_WAKE and turn it on in ->flags, > we'll give the user a free sample of full balance cost, no? Yes, and otherwise we don't select anything? That is just bad engough whether worse or not. So the whole fuss I made is really that this is a right thing to start with. :)