Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched/fair: ignore SIS_UTIL when has idle core

[Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>]

On 8/4/22 5:59 PM, Chen Yu Wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 3:11 PM Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/14/22 2:19 PM, Yicong Yang Wrote:
>>> On 2022/7/12 16:20, Abel Wu wrote:
>>>> When SIS_UTIL is enabled, SIS domain scan will be skipped if
>>>> the LLC is overloaded. Since the overloaded status is checked
>>>> in the load balancing at LLC level, the interval is llc_size
>>>> miliseconds. The duration might be long enough to affect the
>>>> overall system throughput if idle cores are out of reach in
>>>> SIS domain scan.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    kernel/sched/fair.c | 15 +++++++++------
>>>>    1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> index a78d2e3b9d49..cd758b3616bd 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> @@ -6392,16 +6392,19 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
>>>>       struct sched_domain *this_sd;
>>>>       u64 time = 0;
>>>>
>>>> -    this_sd = rcu_dereference(*this_cpu_ptr(&sd_llc));
>>>> -    if (!this_sd)
>>>> -            return -1;
>>>> -
>>>>       cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
>>>>
>>>> -    if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP) && !has_idle_core) {
>>>> +    if (has_idle_core)
>>>> +            goto scan;
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP)) {
>>>>               u64 avg_cost, avg_idle, span_avg;
>>>>               unsigned long now = jiffies;
>>>>
>>>> +            this_sd = rcu_dereference(*this_cpu_ptr(&sd_llc));
>>>> +            if (!this_sd)
>>>> +                    return -1;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I don't follow the change here. True that this_sd is used only in SIS_PROP, but it seems irrelevant with your
>>> commit. Does the position of this make any performance difference?
>>
>> No, this change doesn't make much difference to performance. Are
>> you suggesting that I should make this a separate patch?
>>
> I took a look at this patch again before I start a OLTP test. I
> thought the position change of
> dereference sd_llc might not be closely connected with current change
> as Yicong mentioned.

OK, I will make it a separate patch. But before that I'd prefer wait
for more comments :)

> Besides, after moving the dereference inside SIS_PROP, we might do
> cpumask_and() no matter whether
> sd_llc is valid or not, which might be of extra cost?
> 
I think it might be irrelevant whether the local sd_llc is valid or
not, since all we care about is target sd_llc if !SIS_PROP.

Best Regards,
Abel