Re: [PATCH 3/9] sched: Move idle_stamp up to the core

Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-23T14:39:38Z

On 01/23/2014 01:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:17:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>
>> The idle_balance modifies the idle_stamp field of the rq, making this
>> information to be shared across core.c and fair.c. As we can know if the
>> cpu is going to idle or not with the previous patch, let's encapsulate the
>> idle_stamp information in core.c by moving it up to the caller. The
>> idle_balance function returns true in case a balancing occured and the cpu
>> won't be idle, false if no balance happened and the cpu is going idle.
>>
>> Cc: alex.shi@linaro.org
>> Cc: peterz@infradead.org
>> Cc: mingo@kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1389949444-14821-3-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 ++++++--------
>> kernel/sched/sched.h | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -2680,7 +2680,7 @@ static void __sched __schedule(void)
>> pre_schedule(rq, prev);
>>
>> if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running))
>> - idle_balance(rq);
>> + rq->idle_stamp = idle_balance(rq) ? 0 : rq_clock(rq);
>
> OK, spotted a problem here..
>
> So previously idle_stamp was set _before_ actually doing idle_balance(),
> and that was RIGHT, because that way we include the cost of actually
> doing idle_balance() into the idle time.
>
> By not including the cost of idle_balance() you underestimate the 'idle'
> time in that if idle_balance() filled the entire idle time we account 0
> idle, even though we had 'plenty' of time to run the entire thing.
>
> This leads to not running idle_balance() even though we have the time
> for it.

Good catch. How did you notice that ?

> So we very much want something like:
>
>
> if (!rq->nr_running)
> rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(rq);
>
> p = pick_next_task(rq, prev);
>
> if (!is_idle_task(p))
> rq->idle_stamp = 0;

Is this code assuming idle_balance() is in pick_next_task ?

For this specific patch 3/9, will be ok the following ?

+ if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running)) {
+ rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(rq);
+ if (idle_balance(rq))
+ rq->idle_stamp = 0;
+ }

So the patch 9/9 is wrong also because it does not fill idle_stamp
before idle_balance, the fix would be.

kernel/sched/core.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Index: cpuidle-next/kernel/sched/core.c
===================================================================
--- cpuidle-next.orig/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ cpuidle-next/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2579,15 +2579,17 @@ again:
}
}

+ rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(rq);
+
/*
* If there is a task balanced on this cpu, pick the next task,
* otherwise fall in the optimization by picking the idle task
* directly.
*/
- if (idle_balance(rq))
+ if (idle_balance(rq)) {
+ rq->idle_stamp = 0;
goto again;
-
- rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(rq);
+ }

return idle_sched_class.pick_next_task(rq, prev);
}

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |