public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juri.lelli@gmail.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 15:33:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170327143343.GP10289@e106622-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1490235169-370-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>

Hi,

On 23/03/17 11:12, Byungchul Park wrote:
> When cpudl_find() returns any among free_cpus, the cpu might not be
> closer than others, considering sched domain. For example:
> 
>    this_cpu: 15
>    free_cpus: 0, 1,..., 14 (== later_mask)
>    best_cpu: 0
> 
>    topology:
> 
>    0 --+
>        +--+
>    1 --+  |
>           +-- ... --+
>    2 --+  |         |
>        +--+         |
>    3 --+            |
> 
>    ...             ...
> 
>    12 --+           |
>         +--+        |
>    13 --+  |        |
>            +-- ... -+
>    14 --+  |
>         +--+
>    15 --+
> 
> In this case, it would be best to select 14 since it's a free cpu and
> closest to 15(this_cpu). However, currently the code select 0(best_cpu)
> even though that's just any among free_cpus. Fix it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/deadline.c | 29 +++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index a2ce590..49c93b9 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1324,7 +1324,7 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
>  	struct sched_domain *sd;
>  	struct cpumask *later_mask = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(local_cpu_mask_dl);
>  	int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> -	int best_cpu, cpu = task_cpu(task);
> +	int cpu = task_cpu(task);
>  
>  	/* Make sure the mask is initialized first */
>  	if (unlikely(!later_mask))
> @@ -1337,17 +1337,14 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
>  	 * We have to consider system topology and task affinity
>  	 * first, then we can look for a suitable cpu.
>  	 */
> -	best_cpu = cpudl_find(&task_rq(task)->rd->cpudl,
> -			task, later_mask);
> -	if (best_cpu == -1)
> +	if (cpudl_find(&task_rq(task)->rd->cpudl, task, later_mask) == -1)

It seems that with this we loose the last user of the current return
value of cpudl_find() (heap maximum). I guess we want to change the
return value to be (int)bool, as in rt, so that we can simplify this and
the conditions in check_preempt_equal_dl.

>  		return -1;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * If we are here, some target has been found,
> -	 * the most suitable of which is cached in best_cpu.
> -	 * This is, among the runqueues where the current tasks
> -	 * have later deadlines than the task's one, the rq
> -	 * with the latest possible one.
> +	 * If we are here, some targets have been found, including
> +	 * the most suitable which is, among the runqueues where the
> +	 * current tasks have later deadlines than the task's one, the
> +	 * rq with the latest possible one.
>  	 *
>  	 * Now we check how well this matches with task's
>  	 * affinity and system topology.
> @@ -1367,6 +1364,7 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
>  	rcu_read_lock();
>  	for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
>  		if (sd->flags & SD_WAKE_AFFINE) {
> +			int closest_cpu;

Can we still call this best_cpu, so that we are aligned with rt?

Thanks,

- Juri

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-03-27 14:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-23  2:12 [PATCH v3 1/3] sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2017-03-23  2:12 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-03-23  2:12 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-03-23  9:21   ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-23 13:59     ` Steven Rostedt
2017-03-23  9:44   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-23 10:36     ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-23 14:08       ` Steven Rostedt
2017-03-23 22:45         ` Byungchul Park
2017-03-27 14:33 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2017-03-28  0:04   ` [PATCH v3 1/3] sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park

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=20170327143343.GP10289@e106622-lin \
    --to=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    /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