From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
morten.rasmussen@arm.com, qperret@google.com,
adharmap@codeaurora.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 1/3] sched/fair: Add asymmetric CPU capacity wakeup scan
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 20:09:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200126200934.18712-2-valentin.schneider@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200126200934.18712-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Issue
=====
On asymmetric CPU capacity topologies, we currently rely on wake_cap() to
drive select_task_rq_fair() towards either
- its slow-path (find_idlest_cpu()) if either the previous or
current (waking) CPU has too little capacity for the waking task
- its fast-path (select_idle_sibling()) otherwise
Commit 3273163c6775 ("sched/fair: Let asymmetric CPU configurations balance
at wake-up") points out that this relies on the assumption that "[...]the
CPU capacities within an SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES domain (sd_llc) are
homogeneous".
This assumption no longer holds on newer generations of big.LITTLE
systems (DynamIQ), which can accommodate CPUs of different compute capacity
within a single LLC domain. To hopefully paint a better picture, a regular
big.LITTLE topology would look like this:
+---------+ +---------+
| L2 | | L2 |
+----+----+ +----+----+
|CPU0|CPU1| |CPU2|CPU3|
+----+----+ +----+----+
^^^ ^^^
LITTLEs bigs
which would result in the following scheduler topology:
DIE [ ] <- sd_asym_cpucapacity
MC [ ] [ ] <- sd_llc
0 1 2 3
Conversely, a DynamIQ topology could look like:
+-------------------+
| L3 |
+----+----+----+----+
| L2 | L2 | L2 | L2 |
+----+----+----+----+
|CPU0|CPU1|CPU2|CPU3|
+----+----+----+----+
^^^^^ ^^^^^
LITTLEs bigs
which would result in the following scheduler topology:
MC [ ] <- sd_llc, sd_asym_cpucapacity
0 1 2 3
What this means is that, on DynamIQ systems, we could pass the wake_cap()
test (IOW presume the waking task fits on the CPU capacities of some LLC
domain), thus go through select_idle_sibling().
This function operates on an LLC domain, which here spans both bigs and
LITTLEs, so it could very well pick a CPU of too small capacity for the
task, despite there being fitting idle CPUs - it very much depends on the
CPU iteration order, on which we have absolutely no guarantees
capacity-wise.
Implementation
==============
Introduce yet another select_idle_sibling() helper function that takes CPU
capacity into account. The policy is to pick the first idle CPU which is
big enough for the task (task_util * margin < cpu_capacity). If no
idle CPU is big enough, we pick the idle one with the highest capacity.
Unlike other select_idle_sibling() helpers, this one operates on the
sd_asym_cpucapacity sched_domain pointer, which is guaranteed to span all
known CPU capacities in the system. As such, this will work for both
"legacy" big.LITTLE (LITTLEs & bigs split at MC, joined at DIE) and for
newer DynamIQ systems (e.g. LITTLEs and bigs in the same MC domain).
Co-authored-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 59 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index fe4e0d7753756..aebc2e0e6c8a1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -5894,6 +5894,60 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
return cpu;
}
+static inline int check_cpu_capacity(struct rq *rq, struct sched_domain *sd);
+
+/*
+ * Scan the asym_capacity domain for idle CPUs; pick the first idle one on which
+ * the task fits. If no CPU is big enough, but there are idle ones, try to
+ * maximize capacity.
+ */
+static int select_idle_capacity(struct task_struct *p, int target)
+{
+ unsigned long best_cap = 0;
+ struct sched_domain *sd;
+ struct cpumask *cpus;
+ int best_cpu = -1;
+ struct rq *rq;
+ int cpu;
+
+ if (!static_branch_unlikely(&sched_asym_cpucapacity))
+ return -1;
+
+ sd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_asym_cpucapacity, target));
+ if (!sd)
+ return -1;
+
+ sync_entity_load_avg(&p->se);
+
+ cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(select_idle_mask);
+ cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
+
+ for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target) {
+ rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
+
+ if (!available_idle_cpu(cpu))
+ continue;
+ if (task_fits_capacity(p, rq->cpu_capacity))
+ return cpu;
+
+ /*
+ * It would be silly to keep looping when we've found a CPU
+ * of highest available capacity. Just check that it's not been
+ * too pressured lately.
+ */
+ if (rq->cpu_capacity_orig == READ_ONCE(rq->rd->max_cpu_capacity) &&
+ !check_cpu_capacity(rq, sd))
+ return cpu;
+
+ if (rq->cpu_capacity > best_cap) {
+ best_cap = rq->cpu_capacity;
+ best_cpu = cpu;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return best_cpu;
+}
+
/*
* Try and locate an idle core/thread in the LLC cache domain.
*/
@@ -5902,6 +5956,11 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
struct sched_domain *sd;
int i, recent_used_cpu;
+ /* For asymmetric capacities, try to be smart about the placement */
+ i = select_idle_capacity(p, target);
+ if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
+ return i;
+
if (available_idle_cpu(target) || sched_idle_cpu(target))
return target;
--
2.24.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-26 20:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-26 20:09 [PATCH v3 0/3] sched/fair: Capacity aware wakeup rework Valentin Schneider
2020-01-26 20:09 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2020-01-28 6:22 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] sched/fair: Add asymmetric CPU capacity wakeup scan Pavan Kondeti
2020-01-28 11:30 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-29 3:52 ` Pavan Kondeti
2020-01-29 8:16 ` Qais Yousef
2020-01-29 9:25 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-29 10:38 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-29 12:10 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-29 11:04 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-29 12:10 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-26 20:09 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] sched/topology: Remove SD_BALANCE_WAKE on asymmetric capacity systems Valentin Schneider
2020-01-29 16:27 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-30 11:06 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-26 20:09 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] sched/fair: Kill wake_cap() Valentin Schneider
2020-01-28 9:24 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] sched/fair: Capacity aware wakeup rework Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-28 11:34 ` Valentin Schneider
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=20200126200934.18712-2-valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=adharmap@codeaurora.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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®