mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH v3 0/2] sched: Don't trigger misfit if affinity is restricted
@ 2023-12-31 17:52 Qais Yousef
  2023-12-31 17:52 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] sched/fair: Check a task has a fitting cpu when updating misfit Qais Yousef
  2023-12-31 17:52 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] sched/topology: Sort asym_cap_list in descending order Qais Yousef
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Qais Yousef @ 2023-12-31 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Molnar, Peter Zijlstra, Vincent Guittot, Dietmar Eggemann
  Cc: linux-kernel, Pierre Gondois, Qais Yousef

Changes since v2:

	* Convert access of asym_cap_list to be rcu protected
	* Add new patch to sort the list in descending order
	* Move some declarations inside affinity check block
	* Remove now redundant check against max_cpu_capacity in check_misfit_status()

(thanks Pierre!)

Changes since v1:

	* Use asym_cap_list (thanks Dietmar) to iterate instead of iterating
	  through every cpu which Vincent was concerned about.
	* Use uclamped util to compare with capacity instead of util_fits_cpu()
	  when iterating through capcities (Dietmar).
	* Update commit log with test results to better demonstrate the problem

v1 discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230820203429.568884-1-qyousef@layalina.io/#t
v2 discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231212154056.626978-1-qyousef@layalina.io/

Food for thoughts:
------------------

Should misfit cause balance_interval to double? This patch will still be needed
if the answer is yes to avoid unnecessary misfit-lb to trigger repeatedly
anyway.

Should the doubling be made independent of tick value? As it stands 3 failures
for TICK = 1ms will increase it to 8ms. But for 4ms tick this will become 32ms
after 3 failures. Which I think is too high too soon.

Should the balance_interval be capped to something more reasonable? On systems
that require fast response (interactive Desktop for example),
a balance_interval of 64ms and above seem too high.


Thanks!

--
Qais Yousef

Qais Yousef (2):
  sched/fair: Check a task has a fitting cpu when updating misfit
  sched/topology: Sort asym_cap_list in descending order

 kernel/sched/fair.c     | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 kernel/sched/sched.h    | 14 +++++++++
 kernel/sched/topology.c | 43 +++++++++++++++------------
 3 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

-- 
2.34.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2024-01-04 19:17 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-12-31 17:52 [PATCH v3 0/2] sched: Don't trigger misfit if affinity is restricted Qais Yousef
2023-12-31 17:52 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] sched/fair: Check a task has a fitting cpu when updating misfit Qais Yousef
2023-12-31 17:52 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] sched/topology: Sort asym_cap_list in descending order Qais Yousef
2024-01-02 17:09   ` Pierre Gondois
2024-01-04 19:17     ` Qais Yousef

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®