From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
Alessio Balsini <balsini@google.com>,
Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched/deadline: Improve admission control for asymmetric CPU capacities
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 15:28:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <jhjzhbervk7.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <31620965-e1e7-6854-ad46-8192ee4b41af@arm.com>
On 09/04/20 18:29, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> Well it is indeed the case, but sadly it's not an atomic step - AFAICT with
>> cpusets we do hold some cpuset lock when calling __dl_overflow() and when
>> rebuilding the domains, but not when fiddling with the active mask.
>>
>> I just realized it's even more obvious for dl_cpu_busy(): IIUC it is meant
>> to prevent the removal of a CPU if it would lead to a DL overflow - it
>> works now because the active mask is modified before it gets called, but
>> here it breaks because it's called before the sched_domain rebuild.
>>
>> Perhaps re-computing the root domain capacity sum at every dl_bw_cpus()
>> call would be simpler. It's a bit more work, but then we already have a
>> for_each_cpu_*() loop, and we only rely on the masks being correct.
>
> Maybe we can do a hybrid. We have rd->span and rd->sum_cpu_capacity and
> with the help of an extra per-cpu cpumask we could just
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, dl_bw_mask);
>
> dl_bw_cpus(int i) {
>
> struct cpumask *cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(dl_bw_mask);
> ...
> cpumask_and(cpus, rd->span, cpu_active_mask);
>
> return cpumask_weight(cpus);
+1 on making this use cpumask_weight() :)
> }
>
> and
>
> dl_bw_capacity(int i) {
>
> struct cpumask *cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(dl_bw_mask);
> ...
> cpumask_and(cpus, rd->span, cpu_active_mask);
> if (cpumask_equal(cpus, rd->span))
> return rd->sum_cpu_capacity;
>
> for_each_cpu(i, cpus)
> cap += capacity_orig_of(i);
>
> return cap;
> }
>
> So only in cases in which rd->span and cpu_active_mask differ we would
> have to sum up again.
I think this might just work. In the "stable" case (i.e. not racing with
hotplug), we can use the value cached in the root_domain. Otherwise we'll
detect the mismatch between the cpumask and the root_domain (i.e. CPU
active but not yet included in root_domain, or CPU !active but still
included in root_domain).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-14 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-08 9:50 [PATCH 0/4] Capacity awareness for SCHED_DEADLINE Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-08 9:50 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/topology: Store root domain CPU capacity sum Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-08 12:29 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-08 16:30 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-08 17:03 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-09 13:50 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-09 14:13 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-14 9:20 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-14 12:45 ` Quentin Perret
2020-04-14 15:27 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-14 15:43 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-08 9:50 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/deadline: Improve admission control for asymmetric CPU capacities Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-08 10:42 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-08 12:26 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-08 13:30 ` luca abeni
2020-04-08 14:23 ` Qais Yousef
2020-04-08 15:01 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-09 17:29 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-14 11:40 ` Qais Yousef
2020-04-14 14:29 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-14 15:41 ` Qais Yousef
2020-04-14 14:28 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2020-04-17 12:19 ` Juri Lelli
2020-04-17 14:55 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-17 15:08 ` Juri Lelli
2020-04-17 15:47 ` Juri Lelli
2020-04-08 9:50 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/deadline: Make DL capacity-aware Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-10 12:52 ` Juri Lelli
2020-04-15 9:39 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-15 13:20 ` Juri Lelli
2020-04-15 16:42 ` luca abeni
2020-04-16 13:19 ` Juri Lelli
2020-04-08 9:50 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/deadline: Implement fallback mechanism for !fit case Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-09 10:25 ` Qais Yousef
2020-04-09 13:00 ` luca abeni
2020-04-09 14:55 ` Qais Yousef
2020-04-09 18:43 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-14 11:29 ` Qais Yousef
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=jhjzhbervk7.mognet@arm.com \
--to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=balsini@google.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pkondeti@codeaurora.org \
--cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=wvw@google.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