The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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) {
> 
> 




  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