From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
Alessio Balsini <balsini@google.com>,
Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched/deadline: Improve admission control for asymmetric CPU capacities
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 15:28:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <jhjzhbervk7.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <31620965-e1e7-6854-ad46-8192ee4b41af@arm.com>
On 09/04/20 18:29, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> Well it is indeed the case, but sadly it's not an atomic step - AFAICT with
>> cpusets we do hold some cpuset lock when calling __dl_overflow() and when
>> rebuilding the domains, but not when fiddling with the active mask.
>>
>> I just realized it's even more obvious for dl_cpu_busy(): IIUC it is meant
>> to prevent the removal of a CPU if it would lead to a DL overflow - it
>> works now because the active mask is modified before it gets called, but
>> here it breaks because it's called before the sched_domain rebuild.
>>
>> Perhaps re-computing the root domain capacity sum at every dl_bw_cpus()
>> call would be simpler. It's a bit more work, but then we already have a
>> for_each_cpu_*() loop, and we only rely on the masks being correct.
>
> Maybe we can do a hybrid. We have rd->span and rd->sum_cpu_capacity and
> with the help of an extra per-cpu cpumask we could just
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, dl_bw_mask);
>
> dl_bw_cpus(int i) {
>
> struct cpumask *cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(dl_bw_mask);
> ...
> cpumask_and(cpus, rd->span, cpu_active_mask);
>
> return cpumask_weight(cpus);
+1 on making this use cpumask_weight() :)
> }
>
> and
>
> dl_bw_capacity(int i) {
>
> struct cpumask *cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(dl_bw_mask);
> ...
> cpumask_and(cpus, rd->span, cpu_active_mask);
> if (cpumask_equal(cpus, rd->span))
> return rd->sum_cpu_capacity;
>
> for_each_cpu(i, cpus)
> cap += capacity_orig_of(i);
>
> return cap;
> }
>
> So only in cases in which rd->span and cpu_active_mask differ we would
> have to sum up again.
I think this might just work. In the "stable" case (i.e. not racing with
hotplug), we can use the value cached in the root_domain. Otherwise we'll
detect the mismatch between the cpumask and the root_domain (i.e. CPU
active but not yet included in root_domain, or CPU !active but still
included in root_domain).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-14 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-08 9:50 [PATCH 0/4] Capacity awareness for SCHED_DEADLINE Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-08 9:50 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/topology: Store root domain CPU capacity sum Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-08 12:29 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-08 16:30 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-08 17:03 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-09 13:50 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-09 14:13 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-14 9:20 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-14 12:45 ` Quentin Perret
2020-04-14 15:27 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-14 15:43 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-08 9:50 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/deadline: Improve admission control for asymmetric CPU capacities Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-08 10:42 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-08 12:26 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-08 13:30 ` luca abeni
2020-04-08 14:23 ` Qais Yousef
2020-04-08 15:01 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-09 17:29 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-14 11:40 ` Qais Yousef
2020-04-14 14:29 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-14 15:41 ` Qais Yousef
2020-04-14 14:28 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2020-04-17 12:19 ` Juri Lelli
2020-04-17 14:55 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-17 15:08 ` Juri Lelli
2020-04-17 15:47 ` Juri Lelli
2020-04-08 9:50 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/deadline: Make DL capacity-aware Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-10 12:52 ` Juri Lelli
2020-04-15 9:39 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-15 13:20 ` Juri Lelli
2020-04-15 16:42 ` luca abeni
2020-04-16 13:19 ` Juri Lelli
2020-04-08 9:50 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/deadline: Implement fallback mechanism for !fit case Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-09 10:25 ` Qais Yousef
2020-04-09 13:00 ` luca abeni
2020-04-09 14:55 ` Qais Yousef
2020-04-09 18:43 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-14 11:29 ` Qais Yousef
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=jhjzhbervk7.mognet@arm.com \
--to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=balsini@google.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pkondeti@codeaurora.org \
--cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=wvw@google.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.