From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.jf.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@linux.jf.intel.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2 1/2] sched: check for prev_cpu == this_cpu before calling wake_affine()
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:46:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1271753212.1676.400.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1270079265.7835.8.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com>
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 16:47 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
> Subject: sched: fix select_idle_sibling() logic in select_task_rq_fair()
>
> Issues in the current select_idle_sibling() logic in select_task_rq_fair()
> in the context of a task wake-up:
>
> a) Once we select the idle sibling, we use that domain (spanning the cpu that
> the task is currently woken-up and the idle sibling that we found) in our
> wake_affine() decisions. This domain is completely different from the
> domain(we are supposed to use) that spans the cpu that the task currently
> woken-up and the cpu where the task previously ran.
>
> b) We do select_idle_sibling() check only for the cpu that the task is
> currently woken-up on. If select_task_rq_fair() selects the previously run
> cpu for waking the task, doing a select_idle_sibling() check
> for that cpu also helps and we don't do this currently.
>
> c) In the scenarios where the cpu that the task is woken-up is busy but
> with its HT siblings are idle, we are selecting the task be woken-up
> on the idle HT sibling instead of a core that it previously ran
> and currently completely idle. i.e., we are not taking decisions based on
> wake_affine() but directly selecting an idle sibling that can cause
> an imbalance at the SMT/MC level which will be later corrected by the
> periodic load balancer.
>
> Fix this by first going through the load imbalance calculations using
> wake_affine() and once we make a decision of woken-up cpu vs previously-ran cpu,
> then choose a possible idle sibling for waking up the task on.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
OK, so I'm going to take this, but I had one concern, see below:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> index 49ad993..f905a4b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -1385,28 +1385,48 @@ find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_group *group, struct task_struct *p, int this_cpu)
> * Try and locate an idle CPU in the sched_domain.
> */
> static int
> +select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int target)
> {
> int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> int prev_cpu = task_cpu(p);
> int i;
> + struct sched_domain *sd;
>
> /*
> + * If the task is going to be woken-up on this cpu and if it is
> + * already idle, then it is the right target.
> */
> + if (target == cpu && !cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.nr_running)
> + return cpu;
> +
> + /*
> + * If the task is going to be woken-up on the cpu where it previously
> + * ran and if it is currently idle, then it the right target.
> + */
> + if (target == prev_cpu && !cpu_rq(prev_cpu)->cfs.nr_running)
> return prev_cpu;
>
> /*
> + * Otherwise, iterate the domains and find an elegible idle cpu.
> */
> + for_each_domain(target, sd) {
> + if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES))
> break;
> +
> + for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_domain_span(sd), &p->cpus_allowed) {
> + if (!cpu_rq(i)->cfs.nr_running) {
> + target = i;
> + break;
> + }
> }
> +
> + /*
> + * Lets stop looking for an idle sibling when we reached
> + * the domain that spans the current cpu and prev_cpu.
> + */
> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd)) &&
> + cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sched_domain_span(sd)))
> + break;
> }
>
> return target;
So here we keep using !cfs.nr_running to mean idle, which might not at
all be true when there's real-time tasks around.
So should we be using idle_cpu(i) instead?
> @@ -1429,7 +1449,7 @@ static int select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int wake_flag
> int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> int prev_cpu = task_cpu(p);
> int new_cpu = cpu;
> + int want_affine = 0;
> int want_sd = 1;
> int sync = wake_flags & WF_SYNC;
>
> @@ -1467,36 +1487,15 @@ static int select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int wake_flag
> want_sd = 0;
> }
>
> if (want_affine) {
> /*
> * If both cpu and prev_cpu are part of this domain,
> * cpu is a valid SD_WAKE_AFFINE target.
> */
> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sched_domain_span(tmp))
> + && (tmp->flags & SD_WAKE_AFFINE)) {
> + affine_sd = tmp;
> + want_affine = 0;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -1527,8 +1526,10 @@ static int select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int wake_flag
> #endif
>
> if (affine_sd) {
> + if (cpu == prev_cpu || wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
> + return select_idle_sibling(p, cpu);
> + else
> + return select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu);
> }
>
> while (sd) {
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-20 8:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-08 22:19 [patch v2 1/2] sched: check for prev_cpu == this_cpu before calling wake_affine() Suresh Siddha
2010-03-08 22:19 ` [patch v2 2/2] sched: fix select_idle_sibling() logic in select_task_rq_fair() Suresh Siddha
2010-03-31 10:25 ` [patch v2 1/2] sched: check for prev_cpu == this_cpu before calling wake_affine() Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-31 23:47 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-04-01 5:32 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-04-01 21:04 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-04-02 6:20 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-04-02 17:05 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-04-02 19:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-04-14 20:45 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-04-15 5:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-04-20 8:46 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-04-20 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-20 17:03 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-04-23 10:50 ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Fix select_idle_sibling() logic in select_task_rq_fair() tip-bot for Suresh Siddha
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=1271753212.1676.400.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.jf.intel.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=yanmin_zhang@linux.jf.intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox