On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 17:27 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 17:14, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-09-19 at 09:33 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > runnable load has been introduced to take into account the case
> > > where
> > > blocked load biases the wake up path which may end to select an
> > > overloaded
> > > CPU with a large number of runnable tasks instead of an
> > > underutilized
> > > CPU with a huge blocked load.
> > > 
> > > Tha wake up path now starts to looks for idle CPUs before
> > > comparing
> > > runnable load and it's worth aligning the wake up path with the
> > > load_balance.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> > 
> > On a single socket system, patches 9 & 10 have the
> > result of driving a woken up task (when wake_wide is
> > true) to the CPU core with the lowest blocked load,
> > even when there is an idle core the task could run on
> > right now.
> > 
> > With the whole series applied, I see a 1-2% regression
> > in CPU use due to that issue.
> > 
> > With only patches 1-8 applied, I see a 1% improvement in
> > CPU use for that same workload.
> 
> Thanks for testing.
> patch 8-9 have just replaced runnable load  by blocked load and then
> removed the duplicated metrics in find_idlest_group.
> I'm preparing an additional patch that reworks  find_idlest_group()
> to
> behave similarly to find_busiest_group(). It gathers statistics what
> it already does, then classifies the groups and finally selects the
> idlest one. This should fix the problem that you mentioned above when
> it selects a group with lowest blocked load whereas there are idle
> cpus in another group with high blocked load.

That should do the trick!

> > Given that it looks like select_idle_sibling and
> > find_idlest_group_cpu do roughly the same thing, I
> > wonder if it is enough to simply add an additional
> > test to find_idlest_group to have it return the
> > LLC sg, if it is called on the LLC sd on a single
> > socket system.
> 
> That make sense to me
> 
> > That way find_idlest_group_cpu can still find an
> > idle core like it does today.
> > 
> > Does that seem like a reasonable thing?
> 
> That's worth testing

I'll give it a try.

Doing the full find_idlest_group heuristic
inside an LLC seems like it would be overkill,
anyway.

-- 
All Rights Reversed.