mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: <void@manifault.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
	<mingo@redhat.com>, <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	<vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	<rostedt@goodmis.org>, <bsegall@google.com>, <mgorman@suse.de>,
	<bristot@redhat.com>, <vschneid@redhat.com>, <tj@kernel.org>,
	<roman.gushchin@linux.dev>, <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
	<aaron.lu@intel.com>, <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>,
	<kernel-team@meta.com>, <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched/fair: Improve integration of SHARED_RUNQ feature within newidle_balance
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:15:07 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230831104508.7619-3-kprateek.nayak@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230831104508.7619-1-kprateek.nayak@amd.com>

This patch takes the relevant optimizations from [1] in
newidle_balance(). Following is the breakdown:

- Check "rq->rd->overload" before jumping into newidle_balance, even
  with SHARED_RQ feat enabled.

- Call update_next_balance() for all the domains till MC Domain in
  when SHARED_RQ path is taken.

- Account cost from shared_runq_pick_next_task() and update
  curr_cost and sd->max_newidle_lb_cost accordingly.

- Move the initial rq_unpin_lock() logic around. Also, the caller of
  shared_runq_pick_next_task() is responsible for calling
  rq_repin_lock() if the return value is non zero. (Needs to be verified
  everything is right with LOCKDEP)

- Includes a fix to skip directly above the LLC domain when calling the
  load_balance() in newidle_balance()

All other surgery from [1] has been removed.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/31aeb639-1d66-2d12-1673-c19fed0ab33a@amd.com/ [1]
Signed-off-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index bf844ffa79c2..446ffdad49e1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -337,7 +337,6 @@ static int shared_runq_pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
 		rq_unpin_lock(rq, &src_rf);
 		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, src_rf.flags);
 	}
-	rq_repin_lock(rq, rf);
 
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -12276,50 +12275,83 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
 	if (!cpu_active(this_cpu))
 		return 0;
 
-	if (sched_feat(SHARED_RUNQ)) {
-		pulled_task = shared_runq_pick_next_task(this_rq, rf);
-		if (pulled_task)
-			return pulled_task;
-	}
-
 	/*
 	 * We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such that we
 	 * measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time.
 	 */
 	this_rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(this_rq);
 
-	/*
-	 * This is OK, because current is on_cpu, which avoids it being picked
-	 * for load-balance and preemption/IRQs are still disabled avoiding
-	 * further scheduler activity on it and we're being very careful to
-	 * re-start the picking loop.
-	 */
-	rq_unpin_lock(this_rq, rf);
-
 	rcu_read_lock();
-	sd = rcu_dereference_check_sched_domain(this_rq->sd);
-
-	/*
-	 * Skip <= LLC domains as they likely won't have any tasks if the
-	 * shared runq is empty.
-	 */
-	if (sched_feat(SHARED_RUNQ)) {
+	if (sched_feat(SHARED_RUNQ))
 		sd = rcu_dereference(*this_cpu_ptr(&sd_llc));
-		if (likely(sd))
-			sd = sd->parent;
-	}
+	else
+		sd = rcu_dereference_check_sched_domain(this_rq->sd);
 
 	if (!READ_ONCE(this_rq->rd->overload) ||
-	    (sd && this_rq->avg_idle < sd->max_newidle_lb_cost)) {
+	    /* Look at rq->avg_idle iff SHARED_RUNQ is disabled */
+	    (!sched_feat(SHARED_RUNQ) && sd && this_rq->avg_idle < sd->max_newidle_lb_cost)) {
 
-		if (sd)
+		while (sd) {
 			update_next_balance(sd, &next_balance);
+			sd = sd->child;
+		}
+
 		rcu_read_unlock();
 
 		goto out;
 	}
+
+	if (sched_feat(SHARED_RUNQ)) {
+		struct sched_domain *tmp = sd;
+
+		t0 = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu);
+
+		/* Do update_next_balance() for all domains within LLC */
+		while (tmp) {
+			update_next_balance(tmp, &next_balance);
+			tmp = tmp->child;
+		}
+
+		pulled_task = shared_runq_pick_next_task(this_rq, rf);
+		if (pulled_task) {
+			if (sd) {
+				curr_cost = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu) - t0;
+				/*
+				 * Will help bail out of scans of higer domains
+				 * slightly earlier.
+				 */
+				update_newidle_cost(sd, curr_cost);
+			}
+
+			rcu_read_unlock();
+			goto out_swq;
+		}
+
+		if (sd) {
+			t1 = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu);
+			curr_cost += t1 - t0;
+			update_newidle_cost(sd, curr_cost);
+		}
+
+		/*
+		 * Since shared_runq_pick_next_task() can take a while
+		 * check if the CPU was targetted for a wakeup in the
+		 * meantime.
+		 */
+		if (this_rq->ttwu_pending) {
+			rcu_read_unlock();
+			return 0;
+		}
+	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
+	/*
+	 * This is OK, because current is on_cpu, which avoids it being picked
+	 * for load-balance and preemption/IRQs are still disabled avoiding
+	 * further scheduler activity on it and we're being very careful to
+	 * re-start the picking loop.
+	 */
+	rq_unpin_lock(this_rq, rf);
 	raw_spin_rq_unlock(this_rq);
 
 	t0 = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu);
@@ -12335,6 +12367,13 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
 		if (this_rq->avg_idle < curr_cost + sd->max_newidle_lb_cost)
 			break;
 
+		/*
+		 * Skip <= LLC domains as they likely won't have any tasks if the
+		 * shared runq is empty.
+		 */
+		if (sched_feat(SHARED_RUNQ) && (sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES))
+			continue;
+
 		if (sd->flags & SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE) {
 
 			pulled_task = load_balance(this_cpu, this_rq,
@@ -12361,6 +12400,7 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
 
 	raw_spin_rq_lock(this_rq);
 
+out_swq:
 	if (curr_cost > this_rq->max_idle_balance_cost)
 		this_rq->max_idle_balance_cost = curr_cost;
 
-- 
2.34.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-08-31 10:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-09 22:12 [PATCH v3 0/7] sched: Implement shared runqueue in CFS David Vernet
2023-08-09 22:12 ` [PATCH v3 1/7] sched: Expose move_queued_task() from core.c David Vernet
2023-08-09 22:12 ` [PATCH v3 2/7] sched: Move is_cpu_allowed() into sched.h David Vernet
2023-08-09 22:12 ` [PATCH v3 3/7] sched: Check cpu_active() earlier in newidle_balance() David Vernet
2023-08-09 22:12 ` [PATCH v3 4/7] sched: Enable sched_feat callbacks on enable/disable David Vernet
2023-08-09 22:12 ` [PATCH v3 5/7] sched/fair: Add SHARED_RUNQ sched feature and skeleton calls David Vernet
2023-08-09 22:12 ` [PATCH v3 6/7] sched: Implement shared runqueue in CFS David Vernet
2023-08-10  7:11   ` kernel test robot
2023-08-10  7:41   ` kernel test robot
2023-08-30  6:46   ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-08-31  1:34     ` David Vernet
2023-08-31  3:47       ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-08-09 22:12 ` [PATCH v3 7/7] sched: Shard per-LLC shared runqueues David Vernet
2023-08-09 23:46   ` kernel test robot
2023-08-10  0:12     ` David Vernet
2023-08-10  7:11   ` kernel test robot
2023-08-30  6:17   ` Chen Yu
2023-08-31  0:01     ` David Vernet
2023-08-31 10:45       ` Chen Yu
2023-08-31 19:14         ` David Vernet
2023-09-23  6:35           ` Chen Yu
2023-08-17  8:42 ` [PATCH v3 0/7] sched: Implement shared runqueue in CFS Gautham R. Shenoy
2023-08-18  5:03   ` David Vernet
2023-08-18  8:49     ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2023-08-24 11:14       ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2023-08-24 22:51         ` David Vernet
2023-08-30  9:56           ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-08-31  2:32             ` David Vernet
2023-08-31  4:21               ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-08-31 10:45             ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] DO NOT MERGE: Breaking down the experimantal diff K Prateek Nayak
2023-08-31 10:45               ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Move SHARED_RUNQ related structs and definitions into sched.h K Prateek Nayak
2023-08-31 10:45               ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2023-08-31 18:45                 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched/fair: Improve integration of SHARED_RUNQ feature within newidle_balance David Vernet
2023-08-31 19:47                   ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-08-31 10:45               ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Add a per-shard overload flag K Prateek Nayak
2023-08-31 19:11                 ` David Vernet
2023-08-31 20:23                   ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-09-29 17:01                     ` David Vernet
2023-10-04  4:21                       ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-10-04 17:20                         ` David Vernet
2023-10-05  3:50                           ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-09-27  4:23                   ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-09-27  6:59                     ` Chen Yu
2023-09-27  8:36                       ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-09-28  8:41                         ` Chen Yu
2023-10-03 21:05                       ` David Vernet
2023-10-07  2:10                         ` Chen Yu
2023-09-27 13:08                     ` David Vernet
2023-11-27  8:28 ` [PATCH v3 0/7] sched: Implement shared runqueue in CFS Aboorva Devarajan
2023-11-27 19:49   ` David Vernet
2023-12-07  6:00     ` Aboorva Devarajan
2023-12-04 19:30 ` David Vernet

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=20230831104508.7619-3-kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=void@manifault.com \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=wuyun.abel@bytedance.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®