Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Relax task_hot() for misfit tasks

[Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1305 bytes --]

On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 18:58 +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Consider the following topology:
> 
> Long story short, preempted misfit tasks are affected by task_hot(),
> while
> currently running misfit tasks are intentionally preempted by the
> stopper
> task to migrate them over to a higher-capacity CPU.
> 
> Align detach_tasks() with the active-balance logic and let it pick a
> cache-hot misfit task when the destination CPU can provide a capacity
> uplift.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>

Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>


This patch looks good, but...

> @@ -7672,6 +7698,15 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p,
> struct lb_env *env)
>  	if (tsk_cache_hot == -1)
>  		tsk_cache_hot = task_hot(p, env);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * On a (sane) asymmetric CPU capacity system, the increase in
> compute
> +	 * capacity should offset any potential performance hit caused
> by a
> +	 * migration.
> +	 */
> +	if ((env->dst_grp_type == group_has_spare) &&
> +	    !migrate_degrades_capacity(p, env))
> +		tsk_cache_hot = 0;

... I'm starting to wonder if we should not rename the
tsk_cache_hot variable to something else to make this
code more readable. Probably in another patch :)

-- 
All Rights Reversed.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]