From: Qi Zheng <arch0.zheng@gmail.com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Remove the duplicate check from group_has_capacity()
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:12:17 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <905d8887-e79c-daf6-cbce-80fd0509e37d@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jhjtux9gxh2.mognet@arm.com>
On 2020/8/11 下午8:48, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>
> On 11/08/20 12:44, Qi Zheng wrote:
>> On 2020/8/11 下午6:38, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/08/20 04:39, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>> On 2020/8/11 上午2:33, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/08/20 02:00, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>>>> 1. The group_has_capacity() function is only called in
>>>>>> group_classify().
>>>>>> 2. The following inequality has already been checked in
>>>>>> group_is_overloaded() which was also called in
>>>>>> group_classify().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) <
>>>>>> (sgs->group_runnable * 100)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider group_is_overloaded() returns false because of the first
>>>>> condition:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (sgs->sum_nr_running <= sgs->group_weight)
>>>>> return false;
>>>>>
>>>>> then group_has_capacity() would be the first place where the group_runnable
>>>>> vs group_capacity comparison would be done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now in that specific case we'll actually only check it if
>>>>>
>>>>> sgs->sum_nr_running == sgs->group_weight
>>>>>
>>>>> and the only case where the runnable vs capacity check can fail here is if
>>>>> there's significant capacity pressure going on. TBH this capacity pressure
>>>>> could be happening even when there are fewer tasks than CPUs, so I'm not
>>>>> sure how intentional that corner case is.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe some cpus in sg->cpumask are no longer active at the == case,
>>>> which causes the significant capacity pressure?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That can only happen in that short window between deactivating a CPU and
>>> not having rebuilt the sched_domains yet, which sounds quite elusive.
>>>
>>
>> In fact, at the beginning, I added unlikely() here to hint the compiler:
>>
>> - if ((sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) <
>> - (sgs->group_runnable * 100))
>> + if (unlikely((sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) <
>> + (sgs->group_runnable * 100)))
>>
>> The corresponding patch is as follows:
>>
>> [PATCH]sched/core: add unlikely in group_has_capacity()
>>
>> Do you think it is necessary?
>
> The "unlikely" approach has the benefit of keeping all corner cases in
> place. I was tempted to say it could still make sense to get rid of the
> extra check entirely, given that it has an impact only when:
>
> - sum_nr_running == group_weight
> - group capacity has been noticeably reduced
>
> If sum_nr_running < group_weight, we won't evaluate it.
> If sum_nr_running > group_weight, we either won't call into
> group_has_capacity() or we'll have checked it already in
> group_overloaded().
>
> That said, it does make very much sense to check it in that ==
> case. Vincent might have a different take on this, but right now I'd say
> the unlikely approach is the safest one of the two.
>
So what should I do next? Do I resubmit a patch with unlikely() or
add your email to the old patch([PATCH]sched/core: add unlikely in
group_has_capacity())? Or continue to wait for suggestions from
other maintainers?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-11 13:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-10 1:00 [PATCH] sched/fair: Remove the duplicate check from group_has_capacity() Qi Zheng
2020-08-10 18:33 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-11 3:39 ` Qi Zheng
2020-08-11 10:38 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-11 11:44 ` Qi Zheng
2020-08-11 12:48 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-11 13:12 ` Qi Zheng [this message]
2020-08-11 20:16 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-12 0:46 ` Qi Zheng
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=905d8887-e79c-daf6-cbce-80fd0509e37d@gmail.com \
--to=arch0.zheng@gmail.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.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).