From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, yu.c.chen@intel.com,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
nysal@linux.ibm.com, aboorvad@linux.ibm.com,
srikar@linux.ibm.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
pierre.gondois@arm.com, qyousef@layalina.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] sched/fair: Combine EAS check with overutilized access
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:55:45 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3495922c-91cd-448f-8831-5ce8bab0eda4@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtBTUHv3xBe0U75_4GGYPLYj-NC1uSGd6QjdQyS5k1N0QA@mail.gmail.com>
On 3/26/24 1:56 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 at 08:58, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> * Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> /*
>>> - * Ensure that caller can do EAS. overutilized value
>>> - * make sense only if EAS is enabled
>>> + * overutilized value make sense only if EAS is enabled
>>> */
>>> -static inline int is_rd_overutilized(struct root_domain *rd)
>>> +static inline int is_rd_not_overutilized(struct root_domain *rd)
>>> {
>>> - return READ_ONCE(rd->overutilized);
>>> + return sched_energy_enabled() && !READ_ONCE(rd->overutilized);
>>> }
>>
>> While adding the sched_energy_enabled() condition looks OK, the _not prefix
>> This is silly: putting logical operators into functions names is far less
>> readable than a !fn()...
>>
>>> - if (!is_rd_overutilized(rq->rd) && cpu_overutilized(rq->cpu))
>>> + if (is_rd_not_overutilized(rq->rd) && cpu_overutilized(rq->cpu))
>>
>> Especially since we already have cpu_overutilized(). It's far more coherent
>> to have the same basic attribute functions and put any negation into
>> *actual* logical operators.
>
> I was concerned by the || in this case that could defeat the purpose
> of sched_energy_enabled() but it will return early anyway
>
> return !sched_energy_enabled() || READ_ONCE(rd->overutilized);
I think this would work.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ingo
If EAS - false, then is_rd_overutilized -> would be true always and all users of it do !is_rd_overutilized(). so No operation.
If EAS - true, it reads rd->overutilized value.
Does this look correct?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 3adc0d58f87d8a2e96196a0f47bcd0d2afd057ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 03:58:58 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v7 3/3] sched/fair: Combine EAS check with overutilized access
Access to overutilized is always used with sched_energy_enabled in
the pattern:
if (sched_energy_enabled && !overutilized)
do something
So modify the helper function to return this pattern. This is more
readable code as it would say, do something when root domain is not
overutilized. This function always return true when EAS is disabled.
No change in functionality intended.
Suggested-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 20 +++++++-------------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 24a7530a7d3f..e222e3ad4cfe 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6686,12 +6686,11 @@ static inline bool cpu_overutilized(int cpu)
}
/*
- * Ensure that caller can do EAS. overutilized value
- * make sense only if EAS is enabled
+ * overutilized value make sense only if EAS is enabled
*/
static inline int is_rd_overutilized(struct root_domain *rd)
{
- return READ_ONCE(rd->overutilized);
+ return !sched_energy_enabled() || READ_ONCE(rd->overutilized);
}
static inline void set_rd_overutilized_status(struct root_domain *rd,
@@ -6710,8 +6709,6 @@ static inline void check_update_overutilized_status(struct rq *rq)
* overutilized field is used for load balancing decisions only
* if energy aware scheduler is being used
*/
- if (!sched_energy_enabled())
- return;
if (!is_rd_overutilized(rq->rd) && cpu_overutilized(rq->cpu))
set_rd_overutilized_status(rq->rd, SG_OVERUTILIZED);
@@ -7999,7 +7996,7 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
rcu_read_lock();
pd = rcu_dereference(rd->pd);
- if (!pd || is_rd_overutilized(rd))
+ if (!pd)
goto unlock;
/*
@@ -8202,7 +8199,7 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
return cpu;
- if (sched_energy_enabled()) {
+ if (!is_rd_overutilized(this_rq()->rd)) {
new_cpu = find_energy_efficient_cpu(p, prev_cpu);
if (new_cpu >= 0)
return new_cpu;
@@ -10903,12 +10900,9 @@ static struct sched_group *sched_balance_find_src_group(struct lb_env *env)
if (busiest->group_type == group_misfit_task)
goto force_balance;
- if (sched_energy_enabled()) {
- struct root_domain *rd = env->dst_rq->rd;
-
- if (rcu_dereference(rd->pd) && !is_rd_overutilized(rd))
- goto out_balanced;
- }
+ if (!is_rd_overutilized(env->dst_rq->rd) &&
+ rcu_dereference(env->dst_rq->rd->pd))
+ goto out_balanced;
/* ASYM feature bypasses nice load balance check */
if (busiest->group_type == group_asym_packing)
--
2.39.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-26 12:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-07 8:57 [PATCH v6 0/3] sched/fair: Limit access to overutilized Shrikanth Hegde
2024-03-07 8:57 ` [PATCH v6 1/3] sched/fair: Add EAS checks before updating overutilized Shrikanth Hegde
2024-03-07 16:50 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-03-26 8:06 ` [tip: sched/core] sched/fair: Add EAS checks before updating root_domain::overutilized tip-bot2 for Shrikanth Hegde
2024-03-07 8:57 ` [PATCH v6 2/3] sched/fair: Use helper function to access rd->overutilized Shrikanth Hegde
2024-03-07 16:50 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-03-26 8:06 ` [tip: sched/core] sched/fair: Introduce is_rd_overutilized() helper function to access root_domain::overutilized tip-bot2 for Shrikanth Hegde
2024-03-07 8:57 ` [PATCH v6 3/3] sched/fair: Combine EAS check with overutilized access Shrikanth Hegde
2024-03-07 16:50 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-03-26 7:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-03-26 8:26 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-03-26 12:25 ` Shrikanth Hegde [this message]
2024-03-26 14:12 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-03-26 14:49 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2024-03-14 16:47 ` [PATCH v6 0/3] sched/fair: Limit access to overutilized Valentin Schneider
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=3495922c-91cd-448f-8831-5ce8bab0eda4@linux.ibm.com \
--to=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=aboorvad@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=nysal@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=srikar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
/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