From: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
To: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@intel.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Tim C . Chen" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] x86/sched: Remove SD_ASYM_PACKING from the "SMT" domain
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 16:03:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y5IKuJTjE6Pjrw9I@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221122203532.15013-6-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
Hi Ricardo,
On Tuesday 22 Nov 2022 at 12:35:30 (-0800), Ricardo Neri wrote:
> There is no difference between any of the SMT siblings of a physical core.
> asym_packing load balancing is not needed among siblings.
>
> When balancing load among physical cores, the scheduler now considers the
> state of the siblings when checking the priority of a CPU.
>
> Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
> Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
> Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Cc: Tim C. Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
> * Introduced this patch.
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> index 3f3ea0287f69..c3de98224cb4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ static int x86_core_flags(void)
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> static int x86_smt_flags(void)
> {
> - return cpu_smt_flags() | x86_sched_itmt_flags();
> + return cpu_smt_flags();
Based on:
kernel/sched/topology.c:
sd = highest_flag_domain(cpu, SD_ASYM_PACKING);
rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_asym_packing, cpu), sd);
and described at:
include/linux/sched/sd_flags.h:
/*
* Place busy tasks earlier in the domain
*
* SHARED_CHILD: Usually set on the SMT level. Technically could be set further
* up, but currently assumed to be set from the base domain
* upwards (see update_top_cache_domain()).
* NEEDS_GROUPS: Load balancing flag.
*/
SD_FLAG(SD_ASYM_PACKING, SDF_SHARED_CHILD | SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS)
doesn't your change result in sd_asym_packing being NULL?
The SD_ASYM_PACKING flag requires all children of a domain to have it set
as well. So having SMT not setting the flag, while CLUSTER and MC having
set the flag would result in a broken topology, right?
Thanks,
Ionela.
> }
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-08 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-22 20:35 [PATCH v2 0/7] x86/sched: Avoid unnecessary migrations within SMT domains Ricardo Neri
2022-11-22 20:35 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] sched/fair: Generalize asym_packing logic for SMT local sched group Ricardo Neri
2022-12-06 17:22 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-12-12 17:53 ` Ricardo Neri
2022-12-21 13:03 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-12-22 4:32 ` Ricardo Neri
2022-12-22 11:12 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-12-23 13:11 ` Ricardo Neri
2022-12-22 16:55 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-12-29 4:00 ` Ricardo Neri
2023-01-11 16:04 ` Valentin Schneider
2023-01-13 19:02 ` Ricardo Neri
2023-01-16 4:05 ` Ricardo Neri
2023-01-16 19:07 ` Valentin Schneider
2023-01-17 12:49 ` Ricardo Neri
2022-11-22 20:35 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] sched: Prepare sched_asym_prefer() to handle idle state of SMT siblings Ricardo Neri
2022-11-22 20:35 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] sched: Teach arch_asym_cpu_priority() the " Ricardo Neri
2022-12-06 17:54 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-12-12 17:54 ` Ricardo Neri
2022-12-21 17:12 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-12-22 4:55 ` Ricardo Neri
2022-12-22 16:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-11-22 20:35 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] sched/fair: Introduce sched_smt_siblings_idle() Ricardo Neri
2022-12-06 18:03 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-12-12 17:54 ` Ricardo Neri
2022-12-22 11:12 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-12-22 16:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-12-24 5:28 ` Ricardo Neri
2022-12-28 15:29 ` Chen Yu
2022-12-30 0:17 ` Ricardo Neri
2023-01-10 19:21 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-11-22 20:35 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] x86/sched: Remove SD_ASYM_PACKING from the "SMT" domain Ricardo Neri
2022-12-08 16:03 ` Ionela Voinescu [this message]
2022-12-14 16:59 ` Ricardo Neri
2022-12-15 16:48 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-12-20 0:42 ` Ricardo Neri
2022-12-22 16:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-12-29 19:02 ` Ricardo Neri
2023-01-10 19:17 ` Valentin Schneider
2023-01-13 1:31 ` Ricardo Neri
2022-11-22 20:35 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] x86/sched/itmt: Give all SMT siblings of a core the same priority Ricardo Neri
2022-11-22 20:35 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] x86/sched/itmt: Consider the idle state of SMT siblings Ricardo Neri
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=Y5IKuJTjE6Pjrw9I@arm.com \
--to=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=ravi.v.shankar@intel.com \
--cc=ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ricardo.neri@intel.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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