mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
	Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@gmail.com>,
	Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Calculate the scan depth for idle balance based on system utilization
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 11:31:03 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZJPjn9b56eD5S0tC@BLR-5CG11610CF.amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZJKm195gy7X80wjm@chenyu5-mobl2.ccr.corp.intel.com>

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 03:29:27PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> Hi Gautham,

[..snip..]

> >
> I have an idea to limit scan depth for newidle balance for big domains.
> These domains should have CPUs higher than/equals to LLC(MC domain).
> However it seems that in current kernel only domain with SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
> flag set will have the shared struct sched_domain_shared among the CPUs in this
> domain. And this is reasonable because the cost to access the struct sched_domain_shared
> is lower if the CPUs share cache.

Yes, this was a conscious choice. But now, we may need to explore
using it and consider the trade-off between cachelines bouncing across
LLCs while updating sd_shared on higher domains (I would still prefer
limiting it to below the NUMA domain!) vs having to recompute stuff at
the higher domains, if something has been recently computed for this
level by some other CPU in the domain.

> Since ILB_UTIL relies on the sched_domain_shared
> to get the scan depth, I removed the restriction of SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
> during sched_domain_shared assignment.

That's what Prateek was exploring as well. I wonder however, if we
should have sd_shared defined only for non-NUMA domains.

> If non-LLC domain's sched_domain_shared is only used for ILB_UTIL,
> the overhead should be not too high(only periodic load balance would
> write to sched_domain_shared).
> Here is a untest patch which shows what
> I'm thinking of, and I'll do some refinement based on this:

Thanks a lot for the patch. I will add it to our test queue.

--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-06-22  6:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-06-12 16:17 [RFC PATCH 0/4] Limit the scan depth to find the busiest sched group during newidle balance Chen Yu
2023-06-12 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Extract the function to get the sd_llc_shared Chen Yu
2023-06-12 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] sched/topology: Introduce nr_groups in sched_domain to indicate the number of groups Chen Yu
2023-06-12 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Calculate the scan depth for idle balance based on system utilization Chen Yu
2023-06-15  6:01   ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2023-06-16  6:17     ` Chen Yu
2023-06-21  7:29     ` Chen Yu
2023-06-22  6:01       ` Gautham R. Shenoy [this message]
2023-07-10 11:06       ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-07-10 15:37         ` Chen Yu
2023-07-11  2:52           ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-06-21 11:20     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-06-21 11:17   ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-06-23 14:33     ` Chen Yu
2023-06-23 14:43       ` Chen Yu
2023-06-12 16:19 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: Throttle the busiest group scanning in idle load balance Chen Yu
2023-06-15  4:22 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Limit the scan depth to find the busiest sched group during newidle balance Gautham R. Shenoy

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=ZJPjn9b56eD5S0tC@BLR-5CG11610CF.amd.com \
    --to=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=wuyun.abel@bytedance.com \
    --cc=yangyicong@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=yu.chen.surf@gmail.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®