From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_ext: Refresh idle state when kicking CPUs
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2025 08:06:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z3jd8ohf_05k1ie3@gpd3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z3hZJwfk3n449gd6@slm.duckdns.org>
On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 11:39:51AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 09:55:14AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> ...
> > > When the put_prev/set_next paths were reorganized, we lost the signal on the
> > > CPU re-entering idle from idle. However, that signal is still available if
> > > we hook into idle_class->pick_task(), right? So, if we move
> > > update_idle(true) call there and make sure that we don't generate an event
> > > on busy->busy transitions, we should be able to restore the previous
> > > behavior?
> >
> > Which is basically what I did here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241015111539.12136-1-andrea.righi@linux.dev/
> >
> > We didn't fully like this, because it'd introduce unbalanced transitions,
> > as update_idle(cpu, true) can be generated multiple times. But it's
> > probably fine, at the end we would just restore the original behavior and
> > it'd allow to solve both the "pick_idle + kick CPU" and the "kick from
> > update_idle()" scenarios.
> >
> > If we like this approach I can send a new patch updating the comment to
> > better clarify the scenarios that we are trying to solve. What do you
> > think?
>
> Maybe we can solve the unbalanced transitions by tracking per-cpu idle state
> separately and invoking ops.update_idle() only on actual transitions?
We could call scx_update_idle() from pick_task_idle() to refresh the idle
cpumasks, but skip the call to ops.update_idle() to avoid unbalanced
transitions.
However, if a scheduler implements a custom idle tracking policy through
ops.update_idle() we might face a similar issue: the typical sequence
scx_bpf_pick_idle_cpu() + scx_bpf_kick_cpu() + CPU going back to idle state
without dispatching a task would leave the CPU marked as busy, incorrectly.
The issue is that we call ops.update_idle() when a CPU enters or exits
SCHED_IDLE, whereas it should ideally be called when the CPU transitions
in/out of the idle state. So perhaps a kick from idle should trigger
ops.update_idle(cpu, false)? Still, I'm not sure if that would provide any
benefit... after all, do you see any practical scenarios where having
unbalanced transitions could be a problem?
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-04 7:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-01 18:24 [PATCH] sched_ext: Refresh idle state when kicking CPUs Andrea Righi
2025-01-02 22:33 ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-03 8:55 ` Andrea Righi
2025-01-03 21:39 ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-04 7:06 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2025-01-06 18:53 ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-08 0:17 ` kernel test robot
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=Z3jd8ohf_05k1ie3@gpd3 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.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