From: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@intel.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] sched/fair: Consider SMT in ASYM_PACKING load balance
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 12:07:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210518190740.GA15251@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210515021415.GB14212@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 07:14:15PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 11:47:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 08:49:08AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > > include/linux/sched/topology.h | 1 +
> > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched/topology.h b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > > index 8f0f778b7c91..43bdb8b1e1df 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > > @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ static inline int cpu_numa_flags(void)
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > extern int arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cpu);
> > > +extern bool arch_asym_check_smt_siblings(void);
> > >
> > > struct sched_domain_attr {
> > > int relax_domain_level;
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index c8b66a5d593e..3d6cc027e6e6 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -106,6 +106,15 @@ int __weak arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cpu)
> > > return -cpu;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * For asym packing, first check the state of SMT siblings before deciding to
> > > + * pull tasks.
> > > + */
> > > +bool __weak arch_asym_check_smt_siblings(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return false;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * The margin used when comparing utilization with CPU capacity.
> > > *
> >
> > > @@ -8458,6 +8550,9 @@ sched_asym(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sds, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs
> > > if (group == sds->local)
> > > return false;
> > >
> > > + if (arch_asym_check_smt_siblings())
> > > + return asym_can_pull_tasks(env->dst_cpu, sds, sgs, group);
> > > +
> > > return sched_asym_prefer(env->dst_cpu, group->asym_prefer_cpu);
> > > }
> >
> > So I'm thinking that this is a property of having ASYM_PACKING at a core
> > level, rather than some arch special. Wouldn't something like this be
> > more appropriate?
> >
> > ---
> > --- a/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > @@ -57,7 +57,6 @@ static inline int cpu_numa_flags(void)
> > #endif
> >
> > extern int arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cpu);
> > -extern bool arch_asym_check_smt_siblings(void);
> >
> > struct sched_domain_attr {
> > int relax_domain_level;
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -107,15 +107,6 @@ int __weak arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cp
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > - * For asym packing, first check the state of SMT siblings before deciding to
> > - * pull tasks.
> > - */
> > -bool __weak arch_asym_check_smt_siblings(void)
> > -{
> > - return false;
> > -}
> > -
> > -/*
> > * The margin used when comparing utilization with CPU capacity.
> > *
> > * (default: ~20%)
> > @@ -8550,7 +8541,8 @@ sched_asym(struct lb_env *env, struct sd
> > if (group == sds->local)
> > return false;
> >
> > - if (arch_asym_check_smt_siblings())
> > + if ((sds->local->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY) ||
> > + (group->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY))
> > return asym_can_pull_tasks(env->dst_cpu, sds, sgs, group);
>
> Thanks Peter for the quick review! This makes sense to me. The only
> reason we proposed arch_asym_check_smt_siblings() is because we were
> about breaking powerpc (I need to study how they set priorities for SMT,
> if applicable). If you think this is not an issue I can post a
> v4 with this update.
As far as I can see, priorities in powerpc are set by the CPU number.
However, I am not sure how CPUs are enumerated? If CPUs in brackets are
SMT sibling, Does an enumeration looks like A) [0, 1], [2, 3] or B) [0, 2],
[1, 3]? I guess B is the right answer. Otherwise, both SMT siblings of a
core would need to be busy before a new core is used.
Still, I think the issue described in the cover letter may be
reproducible in powerpc as well. If CPU3 is offlined, and [0, 2] pulled
tasks from [1, -] so that both CPU0 and CPU2 become busy, CPU1 would not be
able to help since CPU0 has the highest priority.
I am cc'ing the linuxppc list to get some feedback.
Thanks and BR,
Ricardo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-18 19:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-13 15:49 [PATCH v3 0/6] sched/fair: Fix load balancing of SMT siblings with ASYM_PACKING Ricardo Neri
2021-05-13 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] sched/topology: Introduce sched_group::flags Ricardo Neri
2021-05-13 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/fair: Optimize checking for group_asym_packing Ricardo Neri
2021-05-13 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] sched/fair: Provide update_sg_lb_stats() with sched domain statistics Ricardo Neri
2021-05-13 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] sched/fair: Carve out logic to mark a group for asymmetric packing Ricardo Neri
2021-05-17 14:21 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-18 19:18 ` Ricardo Neri
2021-05-13 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] sched/fair: Consider SMT in ASYM_PACKING load balance Ricardo Neri
2021-05-14 9:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-15 2:14 ` Ricardo Neri
2021-05-18 19:07 ` Ricardo Neri [this message]
2021-05-19 9:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-19 11:09 ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-05-19 12:05 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2021-05-17 15:18 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-18 19:10 ` Ricardo Neri
2021-05-17 22:28 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-05-17 22:34 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-05-13 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] x86/sched: Enable SMT checks for asymmetric packing in load balancing Ricardo Neri
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=20210518190740.GA15251@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com \
--to=ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@intel.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=ravi.v.shankar@intel.com \
--cc=ricardo.neri@intel.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/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).