From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, joel.opensrc@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juri.lelli@gmail.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:44:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170821134458.gocjoobaybb45egi@e106622-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1503044519-2804-2-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
Hi,
On 18/08/17 17:21, Byungchul Park wrote:
> It would be better to try to check other siblings first if
> SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration.
>
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Mmm, this looks like Peter's proposed patch, maybe add (at least) a
Suggested-by: him ?
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=150176183807073
Also, I'm not sure what Peter meant with
"But still this isn't quite right, because when we consider this for SMT
(as was the intent here) we'll happily occupy a full sibling core over
finding an empty one."
since we are still using the later_mask, which should not include full
cores (unless it is the one with the lates deadline)?
> ---
> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 0223694..115250b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1319,12 +1319,35 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_earliest_pushable_dl_task(struct rq *rq, int cpu
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, local_cpu_mask_dl);
>
> +/*
> + * Find the first cpu in: mask & sd & ~prefer
> + */
> +static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask,
> + const struct sched_domain *sd,
> + const struct sched_domain *prefer)
> +{
> + const struct cpumask *sds = sched_domain_span(sd);
> + const struct cpumask *ps = prefer ? sched_domain_span(prefer) : NULL;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sds))
> + continue;
> + if (ps && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, ps))
> + continue;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return cpu;
> +}
> +
> static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> {
> - struct sched_domain *sd;
> + struct sched_domain *sd, *prefer = NULL;
> struct cpumask *later_mask = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(local_cpu_mask_dl);
> int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> int cpu = task_cpu(task);
> + int fallback_cpu = -1;
>
> /* Make sure the mask is initialized first */
> if (unlikely(!later_mask))
> @@ -1376,8 +1399,7 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> return this_cpu;
> }
>
> - best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(later_mask,
> - sched_domain_span(sd));
> + best_cpu = find_cpu(later_mask, sd, prefer);
> /*
> * Last chance: if a cpu being in both later_mask
> * and current sd span is valid, that becomes our
> @@ -1385,6 +1407,26 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> * already under consideration through later_mask.
> */
It seems that the comment above should be updated as well.
Thanks,
- Juri
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-21 13:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-18 8:21 [PATCH v8 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in topology Byungchul Park
2017-08-18 8:21 ` [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-08-21 13:44 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2017-08-21 13:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-21 14:07 ` Juri Lelli
2017-08-22 5:55 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-22 5:53 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-22 7:12 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-22 7:42 ` Juri Lelli
2017-08-18 8:21 ` [PATCH v8 2/2] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq() Byungchul Park
2017-08-18 13:38 ` Steven Rostedt
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=20170821134458.gocjoobaybb45egi@e106622-lin \
--to=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=joel.opensrc@gmail.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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®