From: Qi Zheng <arch0.zheng@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: add unlikely in group_has_capacity()
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:47:54 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2d271bf3-69c1-e5fd-b7a9-f766ff26ed62@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200806144533.GA2123716@gmail.com>
Yeah, because of the following two points, I also think
the probability is 0%:
a) the sd is protected by rcu lock, and load_balance()
func is between rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock().
b) the sgs is a local variable.
So in the group_classify(), the env->sd->imbalance_pct and
the sgs will not be changed. May I remove the duplicate check
from group_has_capacity() and resubmit a patch?
Yours,
Qi Zheng
On 2020/8/6 下午10:45, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Qi Zheng <arch0.zheng@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. The group_has_capacity() function is only called in
>> group_classify().
>> 2. Before calling the group_has_capacity() function,
>> group_is_overloaded() will first judge the following
>> formula, if it holds, the group_classify() will directly
>> return the group_overloaded.
>>
>> (sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) <
>> (sgs->group_runnable * 100)
>>
>> Therefore, when the group_has_capacity() is called, the
>> probability that the above formalu holds is very small. Hint
>> compilers about that.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <arch0.zheng@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> 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 2ba8f230feb9..9074fd5e23b2 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -8234,8 +8234,8 @@ group_has_capacity(unsigned int imbalance_pct, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
>> if (sgs->sum_nr_running < sgs->group_weight)
>> return true;
>>
>> - if ((sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) <
>> - (sgs->group_runnable * 100))
>> + if (unlikely((sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) <
>> + (sgs->group_runnable * 100)))
>> return false;
>
> Isn't the probability that this second check will match around 0%?
>
> I.e. wouldn't the right fix be to remove the duplicate check from
> group_has_capacity(), because it's already been checked in
> group_classify()? Maybe while leaving a comment in place?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-07 2:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-30 13:54 [PATCH] sched/core: add unlikely in group_has_capacity() Qi Zheng
2020-08-06 14:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2020-08-07 2:47 ` Qi Zheng [this message]
2020-08-12 1:49 ` Qi Zheng
2020-08-17 8:18 ` Vincent Guittot
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=2d271bf3-69c1-e5fd-b7a9-f766ff26ed62@gmail.com \
--to=arch0.zheng@gmail.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@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--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