From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
juri.lelli@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bristot@redhat.com,
kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 14:16:26 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170804051626.GP20323@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170803120334.dogbysvrfeoseu6v@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:03:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> This one I'm not sure on.. at the very least we should exclude all of
> the prefer sibling domain when we do the next domain, and if there are
> multiple prefer sibling levels, we should only pick the first
> fallback_cpu -- there is no point is overriding it with a possible CPU
> further away.
I agree.
> I implemented that below -- although the find_cpu() function is really
> rather horrible.
>
> But still this isn't quite right, because when we consider this for SMT
> (as was the intent here) we'll happily occupy a full sibling core over
> finding an empty one.
>
> Now, the problem is that actually doing the right thing quickly ends up
> very expensive, we'd have to scan the entire cache domain at least once,
> so maybe this is good enough.. no idea :/
>
>
> ---
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1793,12 +1793,35 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_earliest
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, local_cpu_mask_dl);
>
> +/*
> + * Find the first cpu in: mask & sd & ~prefer
^
Yes, I missed it.
> + */
> +static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
> + const struct sched_domain *sd,
> + const struct sched_domain *prefer)
> +{
> + const struct cpumask *sds = sched_domain_span(sd);
> + const struct cpumask *ps = prefer ? sched_domain_span(prefer) : NULL;
> + int cpu = -1;
> +
> + while ((cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, mask)) < nr_cpu_ids) {
> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sds))
> + continue;
> + if (ps && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, ps))
> + continue;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return cpu;
> +}
> +
> static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> {
> - struct sched_domain *sd;
> + struct sched_domain *sd, *prefer = NULL;
> struct cpumask *later_mask = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(local_cpu_mask_dl);
> int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> int cpu = task_cpu(task);
> + int fallback_cpu = -1;
>
> /* Make sure the mask is initialized first */
> if (unlikely(!later_mask))
> @@ -1850,8 +1873,7 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_str
> return this_cpu;
> }
>
> - best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(later_mask,
> - sched_domain_span(sd));
> + best_cpu = find_cpu(later_mask, sd, prefer);
> /*
> * Last chance: if a cpu being in both later_mask
> * and current sd span is valid, that becomes our
> @@ -1859,6 +1881,17 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_str
> * already under consideration through later_mask.
> */
> if (best_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
> + /*
> + * If current domain is SD_PREFER_SIBLING
> + * flaged, we have to get more chances to
> + * check other siblings.
> + */
> + if (sd->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) {
> + prefer = sd;
> + if (fallback_cpu == -1)
^
I like the 'if' statement.
I should have done this.
> + fallback_cpu = best_cpu;
> + continue;
> + }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return best_cpu;
> }
Thank you.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-04 5:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-23 2:00 [PATCH v5 0/4] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2017-05-23 2:00 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] sched/deadline: " Byungchul Park
2017-07-12 13:13 ` Juri Lelli
2017-07-13 1:38 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-10 12:08 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a closer CPU " tip-bot for Byungchul Park
2017-05-23 2:00 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] sched/deadline: Change return value of cpudl_find() Byungchul Park
2017-07-12 13:22 ` Juri Lelli
2017-07-13 1:24 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-10 12:08 ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Byungchul Park
2017-05-23 2:00 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-08-03 12:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-04 5:16 ` Byungchul Park [this message]
2017-05-23 2:00 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-06-02 2:19 ` [PATCH v5 0/4] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2017-07-12 2:44 ` 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=20170804051626.GP20323@X58A-UD3R \
--to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.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