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
next prev 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®