From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A08C05027 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 18:22:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232936AbjBJSWO (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2023 13:22:14 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47858 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232697AbjBJSWM (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2023 13:22:12 -0500 Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06b.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B66B61D15 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:22:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1676053331; x=1707589331; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=JnABS4bzuUOo3oZdGDN/S3N14HFWtHaPR9HjHLG9mC4=; b=RNF29cgDewxOJb5l9emiaB4BUlTbrWNfgzhWaC1JnG1k+3vbK9cHBOwk t2m0cfgvFrwDFRUXAOlJgm+b/5TIqIki98Mg5dpwXEEttqHIQw0+pQqH7 v2VOD+WsJYwAdYMUjal+Ulmn3D0Mz/Bts2Ue7PbAumKQnn6gtjkS/z2PB ekPiAsU9Fh1njZOszOJoSiPtJvWJSw4kThyVeJ/jP21jBhorQMDYGKPVL I9/F16q7P6T3QgmC/mM1JNc4o6xpSO5d8CvbwS7kMdEPP9WLdwvt4H1Sn dXrQFyu237eDgsmQjPP24Z2NmB8TcFc3cIobWmDOEGfQZC3jFOQrTAvUi g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10617"; a="392895704" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.97,287,1669104000"; d="scan'208";a="392895704" Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Feb 2023 10:22:10 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10617"; a="810906179" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.97,287,1669104000"; d="scan'208";a="810906179" Received: from ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com ([172.25.110.23]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2023 10:22:09 -0800 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:31:55 -0800 From: Ricardo Neri To: Valentin Schneider Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Ricardo Neri , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Ben Segall , Daniel Bristot de Oliveira , Dietmar Eggemann , Len Brown , Mel Gorman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Srinivas Pandruvada , Steven Rostedt , Tim Chen , Ionela Voinescu , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Tim C . Chen" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] sched/fair: Use the prefer_sibling flag of the current sched domain Message-ID: <20230210183155.GA11997@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> References: <20230207045838.11243-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> <20230207045838.11243-7-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 05:12:30PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote: > On 10/02/23 17:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 02:54:56PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > > >> So something like have SD_PREFER_SIBLING affect the SD it's on (and not > >> its parent), but remove it from the lowest non-degenerated topology level? > > > > So I was rather confused about the whole moving it between levels things > > this morning -- conceptually, prefer siblings says you want to try > > sibling domains before filling up your current domain. Now, balancing > > between siblings happens one level up, hence looking at child->flags > > makes perfect sense. > > > > But looking at the current domain and still calling it prefer sibling > > makes absolutely no sense what so ever. > > > > True :-) > > > In that confusion I think I also got the polarity wrong, I thought you > > wanted to kill prefer_sibling for the assymetric SMT cases, instead you > > want to force enable it as long as there is one SMT child around. Exactly. > > > > Whichever way around it we do it, I'm thinking perhaps some renaming > > might be in order to clarify things. > > > > How about adding a flag SD_SPREAD_TASKS, which is the effective toggle > > of the behaviour, but have it be set by children with SD_PREFER_SIBLING > > or something. > > > > Or entirely bin SD_PREFER_SIBLING and stick with SD_SPREAD_TASKS, but yeah > something along those lines. I sense a consesus towards SD_SPREAD_TASKS. > > > OTOH, there's also > > > > if (busiest->group_weight == 1 || sds->prefer_sibling) { > > > > which explicitly also takes the group-of-one (the !child case) into > > account, but that's not consistently done. > > > > sds->prefer_sibling = !child || child->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING; This would need a special provision for SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY. > > > > seems an interesting option, > > > except perhaps ASYM_CPUCAPACITY -- I > > forget, can CPUs of different capacity be in the same leaf domain? With > > big.LITTLE I think not, they had their own cache domains and so you get > > at least MC domains per capacity, but DynamiQ might have totally wrecked > > that party. > > Yeah, newer systems can have different capacities in one MC domain, cf: > > b7a331615d25 ("sched/fair: Add asymmetric CPU capacity wakeup scan") > > > > >> (+ add it to the first NUMA level to keep things as they are, even if TBF I > >> find relying on it for NUMA balancing a bit odd). > > > > Arguably it ought to perhaps be one of those node_reclaim_distance > > things. The thing is that NUMA-1 is often fairly quick, esp. these days > > where it's basically on die numa. To conserve the current behavior the NUMA level would need to have SD_SPREAD_TASKS. It will be cleared along with SD_BALANCE_{EXEC, FORK} and SD_WAKE_AFFINE if the numa distance is larger than node_reclaim_distance, yes? Thanks and BR, Ricardo