Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: Fast idling of CPU when system is partially loaded | From | Tim Chen <> | Date | Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:28:02 -0700 |
| |
On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 23:01 -0700, Jason Low wrote: > On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 14:25 -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > kernel/sched/core.c | 12 ++++++++---- > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-- > > kernel/sched/sched.h | 10 ++++++++-- > > 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > > index c6b9879..4f57221 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > > @@ -2630,7 +2630,7 @@ static inline struct task_struct * > > pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev) > > { > > const struct sched_class *class = &fair_sched_class; > > - struct task_struct *p; > > + struct task_struct *p = NULL; > > > > /* > > * Optimization: we know that if all tasks are in > > @@ -2638,9 +2638,13 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev) > > */ > > if (likely(prev->sched_class == class && > > rq->nr_running == rq->cfs.h_nr_running)) { > > - p = fair_sched_class.pick_next_task(rq, prev); > > - if (unlikely(p == RETRY_TASK)) > > - goto again; > > + > > + /* If no cpu has more than 1 task, skip */ > > + if (rq->nr_running > 0 || rq->rd->overload) { > > Hi Tim, > > If it is skipping if no cpu has more than 1 task, should the > above have the additional check for (rq->nr_running > 1) instead > of (rq->nr_running > 0)?
If you have a job on your local cpu, you do want to have the scheduler pick the task to run.
> > @@ -5881,6 +5882,8 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, > > > > sgs->group_load += load; > > sgs->sum_nr_running += rq->nr_running; > > + if (overload && rq->nr_running > 1) > > + *overload = true; > > #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING > > sgs->nr_numa_running += rq->nr_numa_running; > > sgs->nr_preferred_running += rq->nr_preferred_running; > > @@ -5991,6 +5994,7 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd > > struct sched_group *sg = env->sd->groups; > > struct sg_lb_stats tmp_sgs; > > int load_idx, prefer_sibling = 0; > > + bool overload = false; > > > > if (child && child->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) > > prefer_sibling = 1; > > @@ -6011,7 +6015,13 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd > > update_group_power(env->sd, env->dst_cpu); > > } > > > > - update_sg_lb_stats(env, sg, load_idx, local_group, sgs); > > + if (env->sd->parent) > > + update_sg_lb_stats(env, sg, load_idx, local_group, sgs, > > + NULL); > > + else > > + /* gather overload info if we are at root domain */ > > + update_sg_lb_stats(env, sg, load_idx, local_group, sgs, > > + &overload); > > Would it make the code cleaner if we always call: > > + update_sg_lb_stats(env, sg, load_idx, local_group, sgs, > &overload); > > and in update_sg_lb_stats(): > > + bool is_root_domain = (env->sd->parent == NULL) > > > + /* gather overload info if we are at root domain */ > + if (is_root_domain && rq->nr_running > 1) > + *overload = true; >
I want to have the caller to update_sg_lb_stats make the decision on whether there's a need to calculate the indicator, and not make the decision in update_sg_lb_stats.
This allows the flexibility later on if we want such indicator in a lower sched domain hierarchy.
> > if (local_group) > > goto next_group; > > @@ -6045,6 +6055,15 @@ next_group: > > > > if (env->sd->flags & SD_NUMA) > > env->fbq_type = fbq_classify_group(&sds->busiest_stat); > > + > > + if (!env->sd->parent) { > > + /* update overload indicator if we are at root domain */ > > + int i = cpumask_first(sched_domain_span(env->sd)); > > + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(i); > > Perhaps we could just use: > > struct rq *rq = env->dst_rq; >
Yes, your suggested change is more concise. I'll update the code with this change.
Tim
| |