Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] sched/topology: Use prebuilt SD flag degeneration mask

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 02:28:29PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> 
> On 13/07/20 13:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 08:06:55PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> Leverage SD_DEGENERATE_GROUPS_MASK in sd_degenerate() and
> >> sd_degenerate_parent().
> >>
> >> Note that this changes sd_degenerate() somewhat: I'm using the negation of
> >> SD_DEGENERATE_GROUPS_MASK as the mask of flags not requiring groups, which
> >> is equivalent to:
> >>
> >> SD_WAKE_AFFINE | SD_SERIALIZE | SD_NUMA
> >>
> >> whereas the current mask for that is simply
> >>
> >> SD_WAKE_AFFINE
> >>
> >> I played with a few toy NUMA topologies on QEMU and couldn't cause a
> >> different degeneration than what mainline does currently. If that is deemed
> >> too risky, we can go back to using SD_WAKE_AFFINE explicitly.
> >
> > Arguably SD_SERIALIZE needs groups, note how we're only having that
> > effective for machines with at least 2 nodes. It's a bit shit how we end
> > up there, but IIRC that's what it ends up as.
> >
> 
> Right, AFAICT we get SD_SERIALIZE wherever we have SD_NUMA, which is any
> level above NODE.

Oh, right, I forgot we have NODE, d'0h. But in that case these lines:

	if (nr_node_ids == 1)
		pflags &= ~SD_SERIALIZE;

are dead code, right?

> > SD_NUMA is descriptive, and not marking a group as degenerates because
> > it has SD_NUMA seems a bit silly.
> 
> It does, although we can still degenerate it, see below.
> 
> > But then, it would be the top domain
> > and would survive anyway?
> 
> So from what I've tested we still get rid of those via
> sd_parent_degenerate(): child and parent have the same flags and same span,
> so parent goes out.
> 
> That happens in the middle of the NUMA topology levels on that borked
> topology with weird distances, aka
> 
>   node distances:
>   node   0   1   2   3
>     0:  10  12  20  22
>     1:  12  10  22  24
>     2:  20  22  10  12
>     3:  22  24  12  10
> 
> which ought to look something like (+local distance to end result)
> 
>       2      10      2
>   1 <---> 0 <---> 2 <---> 3
> 
> We end up with the following NUMA levels (i.e. deduplicated distances)
>   NUMA (<= 12)
>   NUMA (<= 20)
>   NUMA (<= 22)
>   NUMA (<= 24)
> 
> For e.g. any CPU of node1, NUMA(<=20) is gonna have the same span as
> NUMA(<=12), so we'll degenerate it.

Man, that's horrible :-) OK, fair enough, keep it as is, we'll see what
if anything breaks.