lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RESEND PATCH] sched/fair: consider RT/IRQ pressure in select_idle_sibling
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 07:39:15PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:

> > @@ -6081,7 +6086,7 @@ static int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int
> >
> > for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(core)) {
> > cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, cpus);
> > - if (!idle_cpu(cpu))
> > + if (!idle_cpu(cpu) || !full_capacity(cpu))
> > idle = false;
> > }
>
> There's some difference in logic between select_idle_core and
> select_idle_cpu as far as the full_capacity stuff you're adding goes.
> In select_idle_core, if all CPUs are !full_capacity, you're returning
> -1. But in select_idle_cpu you're returning the best idle CPU that's
> the most cap among the !full_capacity ones. Why there is this
> different in logic? Did I miss something?

select_idle_core() wants to find a whole core that's idle, the way he
changed it we'll not consider a core idle if one (or more) of the
siblings have a heavy IRQ load.

select_idle_cpu() just wants an idle (logical) CPU, and here it looks
for

> >
> > @@ -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.

Its about latency mostly I think; scheduling on the other sibling gets
you to run faster -- the core will interleave the SMT threads and you
don't get to suffer the interrupt load _as_bad_.

If people really cared about their RT workload, they would not allow
regular tasks on its siblings in any case.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-09 13:36    [W:0.101 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site