From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
bsegall@google.com, bristot@redhat.com,
song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com, prime.zeng@huawei.com,
linuxarm@huawei.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Clear target from cpus to scan in select_idle_cpu
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 11:17:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211125111731.GE3301@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211124085401.14411-1-yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 04:54:01PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> Commit 56498cfb045d noticed that "When select_idle_cpu starts scanning for
> an idle CPU, it starts with a target CPU that has already been checked
> by select_idle_sibling. This patch starts with the next CPU instead."
> It only changed the scanning start cpu to target + 1 but still leave
> the target in the scanning cpumask. The target still have a chance to be
> checked in the last turn. Fix this by clear the target from the cpus
> to scan.
>
> Fixes: 56498cfb045d ("sched/fair: Avoid a second scan of target in select_idle_cpu")
> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
Did you check the performance of this? When I tried something like this
in a different context, I found that the cost of clearing the bit was
more expensive than simply using target + 1. For the target to be
rescanned, the whole mask would have to be scanned as no other CPUs are
idle which is the unlikely case. By clearing the bit, a cost is always
incurred even if the first CPU scanned is idle.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-25 11:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-24 8:54 [PATCH] sched/fair: Clear target from cpus to scan in select_idle_cpu Yicong Yang
2021-11-25 11:17 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2021-11-25 12:46 ` Yicong Yang
2021-11-26 9:38 ` Yicong Yang
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=20211125111731.GE3301@suse.de \
--to=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=prime.zeng@huawei.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=yangyicong@hisilicon.com \
/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.