From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Ziljstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux-ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Remove SIS_AVG_CPU
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 15:12:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201208151226.GK3371@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtCqGXJa=GfpBZk5To-xVWVtVL8YVMab9PoxFN1=vOwTWQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:47:40PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > I considered it but made the choice to exclude the cost of cpumask_and()
> > from the avg_scan_cost instead. It's minor but when doing the original
>
> At the cost of a less readable code
>
Slightly less readable, yes.
> > prototype, I didn't think it was appropriate to count the cpumask
> > clearing as part of the scan cost as it's not directly related.
>
> hmm... I think it is because the number of loop is directly related to
> the allowed cpus
>
While that is true, the cost of initialising the map is constant and
what is most important is tracking the scan cost which is variable.
Without SIS_AVG_CPU, the cpumask init can go before SIS_PROP without any
penalty so is this version preferable?
--8<--
sched/fair: Move avg_scan_cost calculations under SIS_PROP
As noted by Vincent Guittot, avg_scan_costs are calculated for SIS_PROP
even if SIS_PROP is disabled. Move the time calculations under a SIS_PROP
check and while we are at it, exclude the cost of initialising the CPU
mask from the average scan cost.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 ++++++++------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index ac7b34e7372b..5c41875aec23 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6153,6 +6153,8 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
if (!this_sd)
return -1;
+ cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
+
if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP)) {
u64 avg_cost, avg_idle, span_avg;
@@ -6168,11 +6170,9 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
nr = div_u64(span_avg, avg_cost);
else
nr = 4;
- }
-
- time = cpu_clock(this);
- cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
+ time = cpu_clock(this);
+ }
for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target) {
if (!--nr)
@@ -6181,8 +6181,10 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
break;
}
- time = cpu_clock(this) - time;
- update_avg(&this_sd->avg_scan_cost, time);
+ if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP)) {
+ time = cpu_clock(this) - time;
+ update_avg(&this_sd->avg_scan_cost, time);
+ }
return cpu;
}
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Ziljstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Linux-ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Remove SIS_AVG_CPU
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 15:12:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201208151226.GK3371@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtCqGXJa=GfpBZk5To-xVWVtVL8YVMab9PoxFN1=vOwTWQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:47:40PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > I considered it but made the choice to exclude the cost of cpumask_and()
> > from the avg_scan_cost instead. It's minor but when doing the original
>
> At the cost of a less readable code
>
Slightly less readable, yes.
> > prototype, I didn't think it was appropriate to count the cpumask
> > clearing as part of the scan cost as it's not directly related.
>
> hmm... I think it is because the number of loop is directly related to
> the allowed cpus
>
While that is true, the cost of initialising the map is constant and
what is most important is tracking the scan cost which is variable.
Without SIS_AVG_CPU, the cpumask init can go before SIS_PROP without any
penalty so is this version preferable?
--8<--
sched/fair: Move avg_scan_cost calculations under SIS_PROP
As noted by Vincent Guittot, avg_scan_costs are calculated for SIS_PROP
even if SIS_PROP is disabled. Move the time calculations under a SIS_PROP
check and while we are at it, exclude the cost of initialising the CPU
mask from the average scan cost.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 ++++++++------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index ac7b34e7372b..5c41875aec23 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6153,6 +6153,8 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
if (!this_sd)
return -1;
+ cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
+
if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP)) {
u64 avg_cost, avg_idle, span_avg;
@@ -6168,11 +6170,9 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
nr = div_u64(span_avg, avg_cost);
else
nr = 4;
- }
-
- time = cpu_clock(this);
- cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
+ time = cpu_clock(this);
+ }
for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target) {
if (!--nr)
@@ -6181,8 +6181,10 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
break;
}
- time = cpu_clock(this) - time;
- update_avg(&this_sd->avg_scan_cost, time);
+ if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP)) {
+ time = cpu_clock(this) - time;
+ update_avg(&this_sd->avg_scan_cost, time);
+ }
return cpu;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-08 15:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-07 9:15 [RFC PATCH 0/4] Reduce worst-case scanning of runqueues in select_idle_sibling Mel Gorman
2020-12-07 9:15 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-07 9:15 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Remove SIS_AVG_CPU Mel Gorman
2020-12-07 9:15 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-07 15:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-07 15:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-08 10:07 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-12-08 10:07 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-12-08 10:59 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 10:59 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 13:24 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-08 13:24 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-08 13:36 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 13:36 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 13:43 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-08 13:43 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-08 13:53 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 13:53 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 14:47 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-08 14:47 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-08 15:12 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2020-12-08 15:12 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 15:19 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-08 15:19 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-07 9:15 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/fair: Do not replace recent_used_cpu with the new target Mel Gorman
2020-12-07 9:15 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 9:57 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-12-08 9:57 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-12-08 11:02 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 11:02 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-07 9:15 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Return an idle cpu if one is found after a failed search for an idle core Mel Gorman
2020-12-07 9:15 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-07 15:06 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-07 15:06 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-07 9:15 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: Avoid revisiting CPUs multiple times during select_idle_sibling Mel Gorman
2020-12-07 9:15 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-07 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Reduce worst-case scanning of runqueues in select_idle_sibling Vincent Guittot
2020-12-07 15:04 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-07 15:42 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-07 15:42 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 2:06 ` Li, Aubrey
2020-12-08 2:06 ` Li, Aubrey
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-12-08 15:34 [PATCH 0/4] Reduce " Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 15:34 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Remove SIS_AVG_CPU Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 15:34 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-08 16:13 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-08 16:13 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-25 8:59 [PATCH v4 0/4] Scan for an idle sibling in a single pass Mel Gorman
2021-01-25 8:59 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Remove SIS_AVG_CPU Mel Gorman
2021-01-27 13:51 [PATCH v5 0/4] Scan for an idle sibling in a single pass Mel Gorman
2021-01-27 13:52 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Remove SIS_AVG_CPU Mel Gorman
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=20201208151226.GK3371@techsingularity.net \
--to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.