lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched/core: forced idle accounting
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:31 PM Josh Don <joshdon@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 10:33 AM Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 5:08 PM Josh Don <joshdon@google.com> wrote:
> > > -void sched_core_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> > > +void sched_core_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > > {
> > > rq->core->core_task_seq++;
> > >
> > > - if (!sched_core_enqueued(p))
> > > - return;
> > > + if (sched_core_enqueued(p)) {
> > > + rb_erase(&p->core_node, &rq->core_tree);
> > > + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&p->core_node);
> > > + }
> > >
> > > - rb_erase(&p->core_node, &rq->core_tree);
> > > - RB_CLEAR_NODE(&p->core_node);
> > > + /*
> > > + * Migrating the last task off the cpu, with the cpu in forced idle
> > > + * state. Reschedule to create an accounting edge for forced idle,
> > > + * and re-examine whether the core is still in forced idle state.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!(flags & DEQUEUE_SAVE) && rq->nr_running == 1 &&
> > > + rq->core->core_forceidle && rq->curr == rq->idle)
> > > + resched_curr(rq);
> >
> > Resched_curr is probably an unwanted side effect of dequeue. Maybe we
> > could extract the check and resched_curr out into a function, and call
> > the function outside of sched_core_dequeue(). In that way, the
> > interface of dequeue doesn't need to change.
>
> This resched is an atypical case; normal load balancing won't steal
> the last runnable task off a cpu. The main reasons this resched could
> trigger are: migration due to affinity change, and migration due to
> sched core doing a cookie_steal. Could bubble this up to
> deactivate_task(), but seems less brittle to keep this in dequeue()
> with the check against DEQUEUE_SAVE (since this creates an important
> accounting edge). Thoughts?
>

I prefer bubbling it up to deactivate_task(). Depending on how many
callers of deactivate_task() need this resched, IMHO it is even fine
to put it in deactivate_task's caller. Wrapping it in a function may
help clarify its purpose.

> > > /*
> > > @@ -5765,7 +5782,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> > > for_each_cpu_wrap(i, smt_mask, cpu) {
> > > rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
> > >
> > > - if (i != cpu)
> > > + if (i != cpu && (rq_i != rq->core || !core_clock_updated))
> > > update_rq_clock(rq_i);
> >
> > Do you mean (rq_i != rq->core && !core_clock_updated)? I thought
> > rq->core has core_clock updated always.
>
> rq->clock is updated on entry to pick_next_task(). rq->core is only
> updated if rq == rq->core, or if we've done the clock update for
> rq->core above.

I meant 'if (i != cpu && rq_i != rq->core)'. Because at this point,
core_clock should already have been updated, is that not the case?
Anyway, the tracking of clock updates here is too confusing to me.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-10-14 19:59    [W:0.068 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site