The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH v3] sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance
@ 2023-10-31 13:38 Keisuke Nishimura
  2023-10-31 15:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
  2023-11-14 21:57 ` [tip: sched/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Keisuke Nishimura
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Keisuke Nishimura @ 2023-10-31 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Molnar, Peter Zijlstra, Vincent Guittot
  Cc: linux-kernel, Chen Yu, Shrikanth Hegde, Dietmar Eggemann,
	Mel Gorman, Valentin Schneider, Julia Lawall, Keisuke Nishimura

should_we_balance is called for the decision to do load-balancing.
When sched ticks invoke this function, only one CPU should return
true. However, in the current code, two CPUs can return true. The
following situation, where b means busy and i means idle, is an
example, because CPU 0 and CPU 2 return true.

        [0, 1] [2, 3]
         b  b   i  b

This fix checks if there exists an idle CPU with busy sibling(s)
after looking for a CPU on an idle core. If some idle CPUs with busy
siblings are found, just the first one should do load-balancing.

Fixes: b1bfeab9b002 ("sched/fair: Consider the idle state of the whole core for load balance")
Signed-off-by: Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr>
Reviewed-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 +++++++---
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 2048138ce54b..921f4f65adef 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -11079,12 +11079,16 @@ static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
 			continue;
 		}
 
-		/* Are we the first idle CPU? */
+		/*
+		 * Are we the first idle core in a non-SMT domain or higher,
+		 * or the first idle CPU in a SMT domain?
+		 */
 		return cpu == env->dst_cpu;
 	}
 
-	if (idle_smt == env->dst_cpu)
-		return true;
+	/* Are we the first idle CPU with busy siblings? */
+	if (idle_smt != -1)
+		return idle_smt == env->dst_cpu;
 
 	/* Are we the first CPU of this group ? */
 	return group_balance_cpu(sg) == env->dst_cpu;
-- 
2.34.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance
  2023-10-31 13:38 [PATCH v3] sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance Keisuke Nishimura
@ 2023-10-31 15:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
  2023-11-14 21:57 ` [tip: sched/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Keisuke Nishimura
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2023-10-31 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Keisuke Nishimura
  Cc: Ingo Molnar, Vincent Guittot, linux-kernel, Chen Yu,
	Shrikanth Hegde, Dietmar Eggemann, Mel Gorman, Valentin Schneider,
	Julia Lawall

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 02:38:22PM +0100, Keisuke Nishimura wrote:
> should_we_balance is called for the decision to do load-balancing.
> When sched ticks invoke this function, only one CPU should return
> true. However, in the current code, two CPUs can return true. The
> following situation, where b means busy and i means idle, is an
> example, because CPU 0 and CPU 2 return true.
> 
>         [0, 1] [2, 3]
>          b  b   i  b
> 
> This fix checks if there exists an idle CPU with busy sibling(s)
> after looking for a CPU on an idle core. If some idle CPUs with busy
> siblings are found, just the first one should do load-balancing.
> 
> Fixes: b1bfeab9b002 ("sched/fair: Consider the idle state of the whole core for load balance")
> Signed-off-by: Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr>
> Reviewed-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>

I'll sit on this until after the merge window, but then I'll queue it
for sched/urgent.

Thanks!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* [tip: sched/urgent] sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance
  2023-10-31 13:38 [PATCH v3] sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance Keisuke Nishimura
  2023-10-31 15:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2023-11-14 21:57 ` tip-bot2 for Keisuke Nishimura
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: tip-bot2 for Keisuke Nishimura @ 2023-11-14 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-tip-commits
  Cc: Keisuke Nishimura, Peter Zijlstra (Intel), Chen Yu,
	Shrikanth Hegde, Vincent Guittot, x86, linux-kernel

The following commit has been merged into the sched/urgent branch of tip:

Commit-ID:     6d7e4782bcf549221b4ccfffec2cf4d1a473f1a3
Gitweb:        https://git.kernel.org/tip/6d7e4782bcf549221b4ccfffec2cf4d1a473f1a3
Author:        Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr>
AuthorDate:    Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:38:22 +01:00
Committer:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CommitterDate: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 22:27:01 +01:00

sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance

should_we_balance is called for the decision to do load-balancing.
When sched ticks invoke this function, only one CPU should return
true. However, in the current code, two CPUs can return true. The
following situation, where b means busy and i means idle, is an
example, because CPU 0 and CPU 2 return true.

        [0, 1] [2, 3]
         b  b   i  b

This fix checks if there exists an idle CPU with busy sibling(s)
after looking for a CPU on an idle core. If some idle CPUs with busy
siblings are found, just the first one should do load-balancing.

Fixes: b1bfeab9b002 ("sched/fair: Consider the idle state of the whole core for load balance")
Signed-off-by: Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231031133821.1570861-1-keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 +++++++---
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 025d909..d7a3c63 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -11184,12 +11184,16 @@ static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
 			continue;
 		}
 
-		/* Are we the first idle CPU? */
+		/*
+		 * Are we the first idle core in a non-SMT domain or higher,
+		 * or the first idle CPU in a SMT domain?
+		 */
 		return cpu == env->dst_cpu;
 	}
 
-	if (idle_smt == env->dst_cpu)
-		return true;
+	/* Are we the first idle CPU with busy siblings? */
+	if (idle_smt != -1)
+		return idle_smt == env->dst_cpu;
 
 	/* Are we the first CPU of this group ? */
 	return group_balance_cpu(sg) == env->dst_cpu;

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-11-14 21:57 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-10-31 13:38 [PATCH v3] sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance Keisuke Nishimura
2023-10-31 15:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-14 21:57 ` [tip: sched/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Keisuke Nishimura

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox