lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH v12 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
Date
Hello Juri,

I've changed the code a little bit to avoid a compile warning caused by
'const' args of find_cpu(). Can I keep your Acked-by?

BEFORE:
static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
const struct sched_domain *sd,
const struct sched_domain *prefer)

AFTER:
static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
struct sched_domain *sd,
struct sched_domain *prefer)

(I temporarily removed the Acked-by you gave me.)
Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>

-----8<-----
From 5a4753e8c15369420a16fa04026f74ae5c9d377c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 16:46:56 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v12 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on
find_later_rq()

It would be better to try to check other siblings first if
SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration.

Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
---
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
index 1356afd..6130d40 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -1853,12 +1853,33 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_earliest_pushable_dl_task(struct rq *rq, int cpu

static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, local_cpu_mask_dl);

+/*
+ * Find the first CPU in: mask & sd & ~prefer
+ */
+static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
+ struct sched_domain *sd,
+ struct sched_domain *prefer)
+{
+ int cpu;
+
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
+ if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd)))
+ continue;
+ if (prefer && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(prefer)))
+ continue;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ return cpu;
+}
+
static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
{
- struct sched_domain *sd;
+ struct sched_domain *sd, *prefer = NULL;
struct cpumask *later_mask = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(local_cpu_mask_dl);
int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
int cpu = task_cpu(task);
+ int fallback_cpu = -1;

/* Make sure the mask is initialized first */
if (unlikely(!later_mask))
@@ -1910,15 +1931,37 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
return this_cpu;
}

- best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(later_mask,
- sched_domain_span(sd));
/*
- * Last chance: if a CPU being in both later_mask
- * and current sd span is valid, that becomes our
- * choice. Of course, the latest possible CPU is
- * already under consideration through later_mask.
+ * If a CPU exists that is in the later_mask and
+ * the current sd span, but not in the prefer sd
+ * span, then that becomes our choice.
+ *
+ * Of course, the latest possible CPU is already
+ * under consideration through later_mask.
*/
+ best_cpu = find_cpu(later_mask, sd, prefer);
+
if (best_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
+ /*
+ * If current domain is SD_PREFER_SIBLING
+ * flaged, we have to try to check other
+ * siblings first.
+ */
+ if (sd->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) {
+ prefer = sd;
+
+ /*
+ * fallback_cpu should be one
+ * in the closest domain among
+ * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains,
+ * in case that more than one
+ * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains
+ * exist in the hierachy.
+ */
+ if (fallback_cpu == -1)
+ fallback_cpu = best_cpu;
+ continue;
+ }
rcu_read_unlock();
return best_cpu;
}
@@ -1927,6 +1970,29 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
rcu_read_unlock();

/*
+ * If fallback_cpu is valid, all our guesses failed *except* for
+ * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domain. Now, we can return the fallback CPU.
+ *
+ * XXX: Consider the following example, 4 cores SMT2 system:
+ *
+ * LLC [0 - 7]
+ * SMT [0 1][2 3][4 5][6 7]
+ * o x o x x x x x
+ *
+ * where 'o': occupied and 'x': empty.
+ *
+ * A wakeup on CPU0 will exclude CPU1 and choose CPU3, since
+ * CPU1 is in a SD_PREFER_SIBLING sd and CPU3 is not. However,
+ * in this case, CPU4 would have been a better choice, since
+ * CPU3 is a (SMT) thread of an already loaded core.
+ *
+ * Doing it 'right' is difficult and expensive. The current
+ * solution is an acceptable approximation.
+ */
+ if (fallback_cpu != -1)
+ return fallback_cpu;
+
+ /*
* At this point, all our guesses failed, we just return
* 'something', and let the caller sort the things out.
*/
--
1.9.1
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-04 10:12    [W:0.061 / U:1.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site