From: Vitalii Bursov <vitaly@bursov.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/fair: allow disabling newidle_balance with sched_relax_domain_level
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:27:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1679cb16-a4a1-4a5f-9742-3523555d33f9@bursov.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtCux6diCArXcF11w+D1VMKLwj-eWUeXQq3d=2=2Xfe8uw@mail.gmail.com>
On 28.03.24 16:43, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 01:31, Vitalii Bursov <vitaly@bursov.com> wrote:
>>
>> Change relax_domain_level checks so that it would be possible
>> to exclude all domains from newidle balancing.
>>
>> This matches the behavior described in the documentation:
>> -1 no request. use system default or follow request of others.
>> 0 no search.
>> 1 search siblings (hyperthreads in a core).
>>
>> "2" enables levels 0 and 1, level_max excludes the last (level_max)
>> level, and level_max+1 includes all levels.
>
> I was about to say that max+1 is useless because it's the same as -1
> but it's not exactly the same because it can supersede the system wide
> default_relax_domain_level. I wonder if one should be able to enable
> more levels than what the system has set by default.
I don't know is such systems exist, but cpusets.rst suggests that
increasing it beyoud the default value is possible:
> If your situation is:
>
> - The migration costs between each cpu can be assumed considerably
> small(for you) due to your special application's behavior or
> special hardware support for CPU cache etc.
> - The searching cost doesn't have impact(for you) or you can make
> the searching cost enough small by managing cpuset to compact etc.
> - The latency is required even it sacrifices cache hit rate etc.
> then increasing 'sched_relax_domain_level' would benefit you.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vitalii Bursov <vitaly@bursov.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 2 +-
>> kernel/sched/debug.c | 1 +
>> kernel/sched/topology.c | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> index 4237c874871..da24187c4e0 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> @@ -2948,7 +2948,7 @@ bool current_cpuset_is_being_rebound(void)
>> static int update_relax_domain_level(struct cpuset *cs, s64 val)
>> {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> - if (val < -1 || val >= sched_domain_level_max)
>> + if (val < -1 || val > sched_domain_level_max + 1)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> #endif
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/debug.c b/kernel/sched/debug.c
>> index 8d5d98a5834..8454cd4e5e1 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/debug.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/debug.c
>> @@ -423,6 +423,7 @@ static void register_sd(struct sched_domain *sd, struct dentry *parent)
>>
>> #undef SDM
>>
>> + debugfs_create_u32("level", 0444, parent, (u32 *)&sd->level);
>
> IMO, this should be a separate patch as it's not part of the fix
Thanks, I'll split it.
>> debugfs_create_file("flags", 0444, parent, &sd->flags, &sd_flags_fops);
>> debugfs_create_file("groups_flags", 0444, parent, &sd->groups->flags, &sd_flags_fops);
>> }
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> index 99ea5986038..3127c9b30af 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> @@ -1468,7 +1468,7 @@ static void set_domain_attribute(struct sched_domain *sd,
>> } else
>> request = attr->relax_domain_level;
>>
>> - if (sd->level > request) {
>> + if (sd->level >= request) {
>
> good catch and worth :
> Fixes: 9ae7ab20b483 ("sched/topology: Don't set SD_BALANCE_WAKE on
> cpuset domain relax")
>
Will add this.
Thanks.
>
>> /* Turn off idle balance on this domain: */
>> sd->flags &= ~(SD_BALANCE_WAKE|SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE);
>> }
>> --
>> 2.20.1
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-28 16:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-28 0:30 [PATCH 0/1] " Vitalii Bursov
2024-03-28 0:30 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Vitalii Bursov
2024-03-28 5:51 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2024-03-28 16:19 ` Vitalii Bursov
2024-03-28 14:43 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-03-28 16:27 ` Vitalii Bursov [this message]
2024-03-28 16:48 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-03-28 17:10 ` Vitalii Bursov
2024-03-28 17:38 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-03-28 0:47 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Vitalii Bursov
2024-03-28 5:48 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2024-03-28 16:17 ` Vitalii Bursov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1679cb16-a4a1-4a5f-9742-3523555d33f9@bursov.com \
--to=vitaly@bursov.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®