From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@linux.dev>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Check idle_cpu in select_idle_core/cpu()
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 00:50:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211009225057.GB174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211009180941.20458-1-tao.zhou@linux.dev>
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 02:09:41AM +0800, Tao Zhou wrote:
> In select_idle_core(), the idle core returned may have no cpu
> allowed. I think the idle core returned for the task is the one
> that can be allowed to run. I insist on this semantics.
>
> In select_idle_cpu(), if select_idle_core() can not find the
> idle core, one reason is that the core is not allowed for the
> task, but the core itself is idle from the point of
> sds->has_idle_cores. I insist on this semantics.
>
> No others, just two additional check.
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index f6a05d9b5443..a44aca5095d3 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6213,7 +6213,7 @@ static int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p, int core, struct cpumask *cpu
> *idle_cpu = cpu;
> }
>
> - if (idle)
> + if (idle && *idle_cpu != -1)
> return core;
In that case, core would be nr_cpu_ids (==nr_cpumask_bits), and then the caller checks:
(unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits
> cpumask_andnot(cpus, cpus, cpu_smt_mask(core));
> @@ -6324,7 +6324,7 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
> }
> }
>
> - if (has_idle_core)
> + if (has_idle_core && *idle_cpu != -1)
> set_idle_cores(target, false);
And this one I'm completely failing, why shouldn't we mark the core as
non-idle when there is a single idle CPU found? That's just worng.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-09 22:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-09 18:09 [PATCH] sched/fair: Check idle_cpu in select_idle_core/cpu() Tao Zhou
2021-10-09 22:50 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-10-10 9:39 ` Tao Zhou
2021-10-10 12:19 ` Barry Song
2021-10-10 14:27 ` Tao Zhou
2021-10-10 20:24 ` Barry Song
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=20211009225057.GB174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tao.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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