* [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