Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] sched/fair: Use the prefer_sibling flag of the current sched domain

[Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>]

On 2023-02-06 at 20:58:34 -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> SD_PREFER_SIBLING is set from the SMT scheduling domain up to the first
> non-NUMA domain (the exception is systems with SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY).
> 
> Above the SMT sched domain, all domains have a child. The SD_PREFER_
> SIBLING is honored always regardless of the scheduling domain at which the
> load balance takes place.
> 
> There are cases, however, in which the busiest CPU's sched domain has
> child but the destination CPU's does not. Consider, for instance a non-SMT
> core (or an SMT core with only one online sibling) doing load balance with
> an SMT core at the MC level. SD_PREFER_SIBLING will not be honored. We are
> left with a fully busy SMT core and an idle non-SMT core.
> 
> Avoid inconsistent behavior. Use the prefer_sibling behavior at the current
> scheduling domain, not its child.
> 
> The NUMA sched domain does not have the SD_PREFER_SIBLING flag. Thus, we
> will not spread load among NUMA sched groups, as desired.
> 
> Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
> Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
> Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Cc: Tim C. Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Suggested-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> Changes since v2:
>  * Introduced this patch.
> 
> Changes since v1:
>  * N/A
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index df7bcbf634a8..a37ad59f20ea 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -10004,7 +10004,6 @@ static void update_idle_cpu_scan(struct lb_env *env,
>  
>  static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sds)
>  {
> -	struct sched_domain *child = env->sd->child;
>  	struct sched_group *sg = env->sd->groups;
>  	struct sg_lb_stats *local = &sds->local_stat;
>  	struct sg_lb_stats tmp_sgs;
> @@ -10045,9 +10044,11 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd
>  		sg = sg->next;
>  	} while (sg != env->sd->groups);
>  
> -	/* Tag domain that child domain prefers tasks go to siblings first */
> -	sds->prefer_sibling = child && child->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING;
> -
> +	/*
> +	 * Tag domain that @env::sd prefers to spread excess tasks among
> +	 * sibling sched groups.
> +	 */
> +	sds->prefer_sibling = env->sd->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING;
>
This does help fix the issue that non-SMT core fails to pull task from busy SMT-cores.
And it also semantically changes the definination of prefer sibling. Do we also
need to change this:
        if ((sd->flags & SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY) && sd->child)
                sd->child->flags &= ~SD_PREFER_SIBLING;
might be:
        if ((sd->flags & SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY))
                sd->flags &= ~SD_PREFER_SIBLING;

thanks,
Chenyu

>