From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_ext: Refresh idle state when kicking CPUs
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2025 08:06:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z3jd8ohf_05k1ie3@gpd3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z3hZJwfk3n449gd6@slm.duckdns.org>
On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 11:39:51AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 09:55:14AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> ...
> > > When the put_prev/set_next paths were reorganized, we lost the signal on the
> > > CPU re-entering idle from idle. However, that signal is still available if
> > > we hook into idle_class->pick_task(), right? So, if we move
> > > update_idle(true) call there and make sure that we don't generate an event
> > > on busy->busy transitions, we should be able to restore the previous
> > > behavior?
> >
> > Which is basically what I did here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241015111539.12136-1-andrea.righi@linux.dev/
> >
> > We didn't fully like this, because it'd introduce unbalanced transitions,
> > as update_idle(cpu, true) can be generated multiple times. But it's
> > probably fine, at the end we would just restore the original behavior and
> > it'd allow to solve both the "pick_idle + kick CPU" and the "kick from
> > update_idle()" scenarios.
> >
> > If we like this approach I can send a new patch updating the comment to
> > better clarify the scenarios that we are trying to solve. What do you
> > think?
>
> Maybe we can solve the unbalanced transitions by tracking per-cpu idle state
> separately and invoking ops.update_idle() only on actual transitions?
We could call scx_update_idle() from pick_task_idle() to refresh the idle
cpumasks, but skip the call to ops.update_idle() to avoid unbalanced
transitions.
However, if a scheduler implements a custom idle tracking policy through
ops.update_idle() we might face a similar issue: the typical sequence
scx_bpf_pick_idle_cpu() + scx_bpf_kick_cpu() + CPU going back to idle state
without dispatching a task would leave the CPU marked as busy, incorrectly.
The issue is that we call ops.update_idle() when a CPU enters or exits
SCHED_IDLE, whereas it should ideally be called when the CPU transitions
in/out of the idle state. So perhaps a kick from idle should trigger
ops.update_idle(cpu, false)? Still, I'm not sure if that would provide any
benefit... after all, do you see any practical scenarios where having
unbalanced transitions could be a problem?
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-04 7:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-01 18:24 [PATCH] sched_ext: Refresh idle state when kicking CPUs Andrea Righi
2025-01-02 22:33 ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-03 8:55 ` Andrea Righi
2025-01-03 21:39 ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-04 7:06 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2025-01-06 18:53 ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-08 0:17 ` kernel test robot
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=Z3jd8ohf_05k1ie3@gpd3 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.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.