mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] sched/fair: Check a task has a fitting cpu when updating misfit
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 23:50:05 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240128235005.txztdbdq2obyi4n6@airbuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDqABnPDmt0COqyRpYSuj_WWwLrqL+Tbfa8J8b5u5eQtQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2213 bytes --]

On 01/26/24 15:08, Vincent Guittot wrote:

> > TBH I had a bit of confirmation bias that this is a problem based on the fix
> > (0ae78eec8aa6) that we had in the past. So on verification I looked at
> > balance_interval and this reproducer which is a not the same as the original
> > one and it might be exposing another problem and I didn't think twice about it.
> 
> I checked the behavior more deeply and I confirm that I don't see
> improvement for the use case described above. I would say that it's
> even worse as I can see some runs where the task stays on little
> whereas a big core has been added in the affinity. Having in mind that
> my system is pretty idle which means that there is almost no other
> reason to trigger an ilb than the misfit task, the change in
> check_misfit_status() is probably the reason for never kicking an ilb
> for such case

It seems I reproduced another problem while trying to reproduce the original
issue, eh.

I did dig more and from what I see the issue is that the rd->overload is not
being set correctly. Which I believe what causes the delays (see attached
picture how rd.overloaded is 0 with some spikes). Only when CPU7
newidle_balance() coincided with rd->overload being 1 that the migration
happens. With the below hack I can see that rd->overload is 1 all the time
(even after the move as we still trigger a misfit on the big CPU). With my
patch only rd->overload is set to 1 (because of this task) only for a short
period after we change affinity.

	diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
	index df348aa55d3c..86069fe527f9 100644
	--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
	+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
	@@ -9707,8 +9707,8 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env,
				continue;
			}

	-               if (local_group)
	-                       continue;
	+               /* if (local_group) */
	+                       /* continue; */

			if (env->sd->flags & SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY) {
				/* Check for a misfit task on the cpu */

I am not sure what the right fix is, but it seems this condition is required
for the 2nd leg of this if condition when we compare with load? I don't think
we should skip the misfit check.


Thanks

--
Qais Yousef

[-- Attachment #2: misfit_overloaded.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 149757 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2024-01-28 23:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-01-05 22:20 [PATCH v4 0/2] sched: Don't trigger misfit if affinity is restricted Qais Yousef
2024-01-05 22:20 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] sched/fair: Check a task has a fitting cpu when updating misfit Qais Yousef
2024-01-22  9:59   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2024-01-22 18:02     ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-23 18:07       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2024-01-24 22:43         ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-25 10:35           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2024-01-26  0:47             ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-23  8:32     ` Vincent Guittot
2024-01-24 22:46       ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-25 17:44         ` Vincent Guittot
2024-01-26  0:37           ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-23  8:26   ` Vincent Guittot
2024-01-24 22:29     ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-25 17:40       ` Vincent Guittot
2024-01-26  1:46         ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-26 14:08           ` Vincent Guittot
2024-01-28 23:50             ` Qais Yousef [this message]
2024-01-29 22:53               ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-30  9:41               ` Vincent Guittot
2024-01-30 23:57                 ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-31 13:55                   ` Vincent Guittot
2024-02-01 22:21                     ` Qais Yousef
2024-02-05 19:49           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2024-02-06 15:06             ` Qais Yousef
2024-02-06 17:17               ` Dietmar Eggemann
2024-02-20 16:07                 ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-23 17:22   ` Vincent Guittot
2024-01-24 22:38     ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-25 17:50       ` Vincent Guittot
2024-01-26  2:07         ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-26 14:15           ` Vincent Guittot
2024-01-28 23:32             ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-05 22:20 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] sched/topology: Sort asym_cap_list in descending order Qais Yousef
2024-01-21  0:10 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] sched: Don't trigger misfit if affinity is restricted Qais Yousef

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=20240128235005.txztdbdq2obyi4n6@airbuntu \
    --to=qyousef@layalina.io \
    --cc=Pierre.Gondois@arm.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --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®