Re: [RFC PATCH 3/6] sched: Add over-utilization/tipping point indicator

Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-09T09:47:10Z

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 11:40:01AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> (I know there is a new version out; but I was reading through this to
> catch up with the discussion)
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 09:43:09AM +0000, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > +static inline int sd_overutilized(struct sched_domain *sd)
> > +{
> > + return READ_ONCE(sd->shared->overutilized);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void update_overutilized_status(struct rq *rq)
> > +{
> > + struct sched_domain *sd;
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + sd = rcu_dereference(rq->sd);
> > + if (sd && !sd_overutilized(sd) && cpu_overutilized(rq->cpu))
> > + WRITE_ONCE(sd->shared->overutilized, 1);
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > +}
> > +#else
>
> I think you ought to go have a look at the end of
> kernel/sched/topology.c:sd_init(), where it says:
>
> /*
> * For all levels sharing cache; connect a sched_domain_shared
> * instance.
> */
> if (sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) {
> sd->shared = *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sds, sd_id);
> atomic_inc(&sd->shared->ref);
> atomic_set(&sd->shared->nr_busy_cpus, sd_weight);
> }
>
> Because if I read all this correctly, your code assumes sd->shared
> exists unconditionally, while the quoted bit only ensures it does so <=
> LLC.

Argh, n/m, I should read the whole patch before commenting I suppose ;-)