All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
	Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] sched_ext: idle: Get rid of the scx_selcpu_topo_numa logic
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 15:39:56 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z2n0xDaP7Ulq1DSg@yury-ThinkPad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241220154107.287478-10-arighi@nvidia.com>

On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 04:11:41PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> With the introduction of separate per-NUMA node cpumasks, we
> automatically track idle CPUs within each NUMA node.
> 
> This makes the special logic for determining idle CPUs in each NUMA node
> redundant and unnecessary, so we can get rid of it.

But it looks like you do more than that... 

> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/ext_idle.c | 93 ++++++++++-------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c b/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
> index 013deaa08f12..b36e93da1b75 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
> @@ -82,7 +82,6 @@ static void idle_masks_init(void)
>  }
>  
>  static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(scx_selcpu_topo_llc);
> -static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(scx_selcpu_topo_numa);
>  
>  /*
>   * Return the node id associated to a target idle CPU (used to determine
> @@ -259,25 +258,6 @@ static unsigned int numa_weight(s32 cpu)
>  	return sg->group_weight;
>  }
>  
> -/*
> - * Return the cpumask representing the NUMA domain of @cpu (or NULL if the NUMA
> - * domain is not defined).
> - */
> -static struct cpumask *numa_span(s32 cpu)
> -{
> -	struct sched_domain *sd;
> -	struct sched_group *sg;
> -
> -	sd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_numa, cpu));
> -	if (!sd)
> -		return NULL;
> -	sg = sd->groups;
> -	if (!sg)
> -		return NULL;
> -
> -	return sched_group_span(sg);

I didn't find llc_span() and node_span() in vanilla kernel. Does this series
have prerequisites?

> -}
> -
>  /*
>   * Return true if the LLC domains do not perfectly overlap with the NUMA
>   * domains, false otherwise.
> @@ -329,7 +309,7 @@ static bool llc_numa_mismatch(void)
>   */
>  static void update_selcpu_topology(struct sched_ext_ops *ops)
>  {
> -	bool enable_llc = false, enable_numa = false;
> +	bool enable_llc = false;
>  	unsigned int nr_cpus;
>  	s32 cpu = cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);
>  
> @@ -348,41 +328,34 @@ static void update_selcpu_topology(struct sched_ext_ops *ops)
>  	if (nr_cpus > 0) {
>  		if (nr_cpus < num_online_cpus())
>  			enable_llc = true;
> +		/*
> +		 * No need to enable LLC optimization if the LLC domains are
> +		 * perfectly overlapping with the NUMA domains when per-node
> +		 * cpumasks are enabled.
> +		 */
> +		if ((ops->flags & SCX_OPS_BUILTIN_IDLE_PER_NODE) &&
> +		    !llc_numa_mismatch())
> +			enable_llc = false;

This doesn't sound like redundancy removal. I may be wrong, but this
looks like a sort of optimization. If so, it deserves to be a separate
patch.

>  		pr_debug("sched_ext: LLC=%*pb weight=%u\n",
>  			 cpumask_pr_args(llc_span(cpu)), llc_weight(cpu));
>  	}
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Enable NUMA optimization only when there are multiple NUMA domains
> -	 * among the online CPUs and the NUMA domains don't perfectly overlaps
> -	 * with the LLC domains.
> -	 *
> -	 * If all CPUs belong to the same NUMA node and the same LLC domain,
> -	 * enabling both NUMA and LLC optimizations is unnecessary, as checking
> -	 * for an idle CPU in the same domain twice is redundant.
> -	 */
> -	nr_cpus = numa_weight(cpu);

Neither I found numa_weight()...

> -	if (nr_cpus > 0) {
> -		if (nr_cpus < num_online_cpus() && llc_numa_mismatch())
> -			enable_numa = true;
> -		pr_debug("sched_ext: NUMA=%*pb weight=%u\n",
> -			 cpumask_pr_args(numa_span(cpu)), numa_weight(cpu));
> -	}

This calls numa_weight() twice. Get rid of it for good.

>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  
>  	pr_debug("sched_ext: LLC idle selection %s\n",
>  		 enable_llc ? "enabled" : "disabled");
> -	pr_debug("sched_ext: NUMA idle selection %s\n",
> -		 enable_numa ? "enabled" : "disabled");
>  
>  	if (enable_llc)
>  		static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&scx_selcpu_topo_llc);
>  	else
>  		static_branch_disable_cpuslocked(&scx_selcpu_topo_llc);
> -	if (enable_numa)
> -		static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&scx_selcpu_topo_numa);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Check if we need to enable per-node cpumasks.
> +	 */
> +	if (ops->flags & SCX_OPS_BUILTIN_IDLE_PER_NODE)
> +		static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&scx_builtin_idle_per_node);

This is the key from the whole series!

>  	else
> -		static_branch_disable_cpuslocked(&scx_selcpu_topo_numa);
> +		static_branch_disable_cpuslocked(&scx_builtin_idle_per_node);
>  }

This knob enables the whole new machinery, and it definitely deserves to
be a separate, very last patch. Now it looks like a sneaky replacement of
scx_selcpu_topo_numa with scx_builtin_idle_per_node, and this is wrong. 

Are you sure you need a comment on top of it? To me, the code is quite
self-explaining...

>  
>  /*
> @@ -405,9 +378,8 @@ static void update_selcpu_topology(struct sched_ext_ops *ops)
>   *
>   * 5. Pick any idle CPU usable by the task.
>   *
> - * Step 3 and 4 are performed only if the system has, respectively, multiple
> - * LLC domains / multiple NUMA nodes (see scx_selcpu_topo_llc and
> - * scx_selcpu_topo_numa).
> + * Step 3 is performed only if the system has multiple LLC domains that are not
> + * perfectly overlapping with the NUMA domains (see scx_selcpu_topo_llc).
>   *
>   * NOTE: tasks that can only run on 1 CPU are excluded by this logic, because
>   * we never call ops.select_cpu() for them, see select_task_rq().
> @@ -416,7 +388,6 @@ static s32 scx_select_cpu_dfl(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu,
>  			      u64 wake_flags, bool *found)
>  {
>  	const struct cpumask *llc_cpus = NULL;
> -	const struct cpumask *numa_cpus = NULL;
>  	int node = idle_cpu_to_node(prev_cpu);
>  	s32 cpu;
>  
> @@ -438,13 +409,9 @@ static s32 scx_select_cpu_dfl(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu,
>  	 * CPU affinity), the task will simply use the flat scheduling domain
>  	 * defined by user-space.
>  	 */
> -	if (p->nr_cpus_allowed >= num_possible_cpus()) {
> -		if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_NUMA, &scx_selcpu_topo_numa))
> -			numa_cpus = numa_span(prev_cpu);
> -
> +	if (p->nr_cpus_allowed >= num_possible_cpus())
>  		if (static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_SCHED_MC, &scx_selcpu_topo_llc))
>  			llc_cpus = llc_span(prev_cpu);
> -	}

I'd keep the curve braces. That would minimize your patch and preserve
more history.

>  
>  	/*
>  	 * If WAKE_SYNC, try to migrate the wakee to the waker's CPU.
> @@ -507,15 +474,6 @@ static s32 scx_select_cpu_dfl(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu,
>  				goto cpu_found;
>  		}
>  
> -		/*
> -		 * Search for any fully idle core in the same NUMA node.
> -		 */
> -		if (numa_cpus) {
> -			cpu = scx_pick_idle_cpu(numa_cpus, node, SCX_PICK_IDLE_CORE);
> -			if (cpu >= 0)
> -				goto cpu_found;
> -		}
> -
>  		/*
>  		 * Search for any full idle core usable by the task.
>  		 *
> @@ -545,17 +503,12 @@ static s32 scx_select_cpu_dfl(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu,
>  			goto cpu_found;
>  	}
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Search for any idle CPU in the same NUMA node.
> -	 */
> -	if (numa_cpus) {
> -		cpu = pick_idle_cpu_from_node(numa_cpus, node, 0);
> -		if (cpu >= 0)
> -			goto cpu_found;
> -	}
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * Search for any idle CPU usable by the task.
> +	 *
> +	 * If NUMA aware idle selection is enabled, the search will begin
> +	 * in prev_cpu's node and proceed to other nodes in order of
> +	 * increasing distance.

Again, this definitely not a redundancy removal. This is a description
of new behavior, and should go with the implementation of that
behavior.

>  	 */
>  	cpu = scx_pick_idle_cpu(p->cpus_ptr, node, 0);
>  	if (cpu >= 0)
> -- 
> 2.47.1

  reply	other threads:[~2024-12-23 23:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-12-20 15:11 [PATCHSET v8 sched_ext/for-6.14] sched_ext: split global idle cpumask into per-NUMA cpumasks Andrea Righi
2024-12-20 15:11 ` [PATCH 01/10] sched/topology: introduce for_each_numa_hop_node() / sched_numa_hop_node() Andrea Righi
2024-12-23 21:18   ` Yury Norov
2024-12-24  7:54     ` Andrea Righi
2024-12-24 17:33       ` Yury Norov
2024-12-20 15:11 ` [PATCH 02/10] sched_ext: Move built-in idle CPU selection policy to a separate file Andrea Righi
2024-12-24 21:21   ` Tejun Heo
2024-12-20 15:11 ` [PATCH 03/10] sched_ext: idle: introduce check_builtin_idle_enabled() helper Andrea Righi
2024-12-20 15:11 ` [PATCH 04/10] sched_ext: idle: use assign_cpu() to update the idle cpumask Andrea Righi
2024-12-23 22:26   ` Yury Norov
2024-12-20 15:11 ` [PATCH 05/10] sched_ext: idle: clarify comments Andrea Righi
2024-12-23 22:28   ` Yury Norov
2024-12-20 15:11 ` [PATCH 06/10] sched_ext: Introduce SCX_OPS_NODE_BUILTIN_IDLE Andrea Righi
2024-12-20 15:11 ` [PATCH 07/10] sched_ext: Introduce per-node idle cpumasks Andrea Righi
2024-12-24  4:05   ` Yury Norov
2024-12-24  8:18     ` Andrea Righi
2024-12-24 17:59       ` Yury Norov
2024-12-20 15:11 ` [PATCH 08/10] sched_ext: idle: introduce SCX_PICK_IDLE_NODE Andrea Righi
2024-12-24  2:48   ` Yury Norov
2024-12-24  3:53     ` Yury Norov
2024-12-24  8:37       ` Andrea Righi
2024-12-24 18:15         ` Yury Norov
2024-12-24  8:22     ` Andrea Righi
2024-12-24 21:29       ` Tejun Heo
2024-12-20 15:11 ` [PATCH 09/10] sched_ext: idle: Get rid of the scx_selcpu_topo_numa logic Andrea Righi
2024-12-23 23:39   ` Yury Norov [this message]
2024-12-24  8:58     ` Andrea Righi
2024-12-20 15:11 ` [PATCH 10/10] sched_ext: idle: Introduce NUMA aware idle cpu kfunc helpers Andrea Righi
2024-12-24  0:57   ` Yury Norov
2024-12-24  9:32     ` Andrea Righi

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=Z2n0xDaP7Ulq1DSg@yury-ThinkPad \
    --to=yury.norov@gmail.com \
    --cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=void@manifault.com \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.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.