From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B98C4361A for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:31:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6F5622581 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:31:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B6F5622581 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=techsingularity.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=DS9rMSLQ1siX1gRKnm2LDQk5Pol/6cCpnjoOj+FE/zA=; b=I6MUXXzg6CkxFYBAGET916+Za pHcP/Df82qnBBniq4+gOtpEm4xn9rAvtydOUU0NWwHY1mdY+FZY1WvjFRTjlqelHEGFCpLwPTg1S/ zdnazVyWTgMwacFN1SQ57Sg+nbj6rNvRVlOArmayE+guBi3Ym4JixkgHhBlxDMYKpes/dlX7Mtq2z 9jhwfqlPC2579QBhrHrgSOsKbHDbbbBRn00zhCUvvVrpqTSHXXqyMv8uHWUEVJ9NkURQlKEIdPpcw 6lcy5bOwRuQerfe3mz/MWQkCLBarAvKEPJ7OeyrofezkYFQ5hgdsLC5XcuA3qgvYJjdFTtIX9Vfxr cinqluUwA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kl9IM-0007iL-EU; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 11:30:38 +0000 Received: from outbound-smtp38.blacknight.com ([46.22.139.221]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kl9IJ-0007hY-63 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 11:30:36 +0000 Received: from mail.blacknight.com (pemlinmail02.blacknight.ie [81.17.254.11]) by outbound-smtp38.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0061DCF for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:30:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 20093 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2020 11:30:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO techsingularity.net) (mgorman@techsingularity.net@[84.203.22.4]) by 81.17.254.9 with ESMTPSA (AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 4 Dec 2020 11:30:32 -0000 Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:30:30 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Vincent Guittot Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] sched/fair: Clear the target CPU from the cpumask of CPUs searched Message-ID: <20201204113030.GZ3371@techsingularity.net> References: <20201203141124.7391-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <20201203141124.7391-7-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <20201203175204.GY3371@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201204_063035_322279_EBA1A4CB X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 15.22 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Barry Song , Juri Lelli , Peter Ziljstra , Aubrey Li , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Valentin Schneider , Linux-ARM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > The intent was that the sibling might still be an idle candidate. In > > the current draft of the series, I do not even clear this so that the > > SMT sibling is considered as an idle candidate. The reasoning is that if > > there are no idle cores then an SMT sibling of the target is as good an > > idle CPU to select as any. > > Isn't the purpose of select_idle_smt ? > Only in part. > select_idle_core() looks for an idle core and opportunistically saves > an idle CPU candidate to skip select_idle_cpu. In this case this is > useless loops for select_idle_core() because we are sure that the core > is not idle > If select_idle_core() finds an idle candidate other than the sibling, it'll use it if there is no idle core -- it picks a busy sibling based on a linear walk of the cpumask. Similarly, select_idle_cpu() is not guaranteed to scan the sibling first (ordering) or even reach the sibling (throttling). select_idle_smt() is a last-ditch effort. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A914FC4361A for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:31:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA5822581 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:31:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387515AbgLDLbZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 06:31:25 -0500 Received: from outbound-smtp49.blacknight.com ([46.22.136.233]:36317 "EHLO outbound-smtp49.blacknight.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726031AbgLDLbY (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 06:31:24 -0500 Received: from mail.blacknight.com (pemlinmail02.blacknight.ie [81.17.254.11]) by outbound-smtp49.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0596CFB9C2 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:30:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 20093 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2020 11:30:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO techsingularity.net) (mgorman@techsingularity.net@[84.203.22.4]) by 81.17.254.9 with ESMTPSA (AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 4 Dec 2020 11:30:32 -0000 Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:30:30 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Vincent Guittot Cc: LKML , Aubrey Li , Barry Song , Ingo Molnar , Peter Ziljstra , Juri Lelli , Valentin Schneider , Linux-ARM Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] sched/fair: Clear the target CPU from the cpumask of CPUs searched Message-ID: <20201204113030.GZ3371@techsingularity.net> References: <20201203141124.7391-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <20201203141124.7391-7-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <20201203175204.GY3371@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > The intent was that the sibling might still be an idle candidate. In > > the current draft of the series, I do not even clear this so that the > > SMT sibling is considered as an idle candidate. The reasoning is that if > > there are no idle cores then an SMT sibling of the target is as good an > > idle CPU to select as any. > > Isn't the purpose of select_idle_smt ? > Only in part. > select_idle_core() looks for an idle core and opportunistically saves > an idle CPU candidate to skip select_idle_cpu. In this case this is > useless loops for select_idle_core() because we are sure that the core > is not idle > If select_idle_core() finds an idle candidate other than the sibling, it'll use it if there is no idle core -- it picks a busy sibling based on a linear walk of the cpumask. Similarly, select_idle_cpu() is not guaranteed to scan the sibling first (ordering) or even reach the sibling (throttling). select_idle_smt() is a last-ditch effort. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs