lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RESEND PATCH] sched/fair: consider RT/IRQ pressure in select_idle_sibling
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Rohit Jain <rohit.k.jain@oracle.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> @@ -6102,7 +6107,8 @@ static int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p,
>>> struct sched_domain *sd, int
>>> */
>>> static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain
>>> *sd, int target)
>>> {
>>> - int cpu;
>>> + int cpu, rcpu = -1;
>>> + unsigned long max_cap = 0;
>>>
>>> if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_smt_present))
>>> return -1;
>>> @@ -6110,11 +6116,13 @@ static int select_idle_smt(struct task_struct *p,
>>> struct sched_domain *sd, int t
>>> for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(target)) {
>>> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &p->cpus_allowed))
>>> continue;
>>> - if (idle_cpu(cpu))
>>> - return cpu;
>>> + if (idle_cpu(cpu) && (capacity_of(cpu) > max_cap)) {
>>> + max_cap = capacity_of(cpu);
>>> + rcpu = cpu;
>>
>> At the SMT level, do you need to bother with choosing best capacity
>> among threads? If RT is eating into one of the SMT thread's underlying
>> capacity, it would eat into the other's. Wondering what's the benefit
>> of doing this here.
>
>
> Yes, you are right because of SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY, however the benefit
> is that if don't do this check, we might end up picking a SMT thread
> which has "high" RT/IRQ activity and be on the run queue for a while,
> till the pull side can bail us out.

Do your tests show a difference in results though with such change
(for select_idle_smt)?

thanks,

- Joel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-06 07:43    [W:0.061 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site