mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 9/9] sched/topology: Define and use shortcut pointers for wakeup sd_flag scan
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:27:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <jhjv9lz78nv.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtD5x_NQ1KfHhTiAR3eNA85+k13nfSR-9_PKLp6FgVu08A@mail.gmail.com>


On 16/04/20 14:36, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Coming back to the v2 discussion on this patch
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200311181601.18314-10-valentin.schneider@arm.com
>>
>> SD_BALANCE_WAKE is not used in mainline anymore, so wakeups are always
>> fast today.
>>
>> I.e. you wouldn't need a per_cpu(sd_balance_wake, cpu) since it's always
>> NULL.
>>
>> I.e. want_affine logic and the 'for_each_domain(cpu, tmp)' isn't needed
>> anymore.
>>
>> This will dramatically simplify the code in select_task_rq_fair().
>>
>> But I guess Vincent wants to keep the functionality so we're able to
>> enable SD_BALANCE_WAKE on certain sd's?
>
> I looked too quickly what was done by this patch. I thought that it
> was adding a per_cpu pointer for all cases including the fast path
> with wake affine but it only skips the for_each_domain loop for the
> slow paths which don't need it because they are already slow.
>
> It would be better to keep the for_each_domain loop for slow paths and
> to use a per_cpu pointer for fast_path/wake affine. Regarding the
> wake_affine path, we don't really care about looping all domains and
> we could directly use the highest domain because wake_affine() that is
> used in the loop, only uses the imbalance_pct of the sched domain for
> wake_affine_weight() and it should not harm to use only the highest
> domain and then select_idle_sibling doesn't use it but the llc or
> asym_capacity pointer instead.

So Dietmar's pointing out that sd will always be NULL for want_affine,
because want_affine can only be true at wakeups and we don't have any
topologies with SD_BALANCE_WAKE anymore. We would still want to call
wake_affine() though, because that can change new_cpu.

What you are adding on top is that the only sd field used in wake_affine()
is the imbalance_pct, so we could take a shortcut and just go for the
highest domain with SD_WAKE_AFFINE; i.e. something like this:

---
if (want_affine) {
        // We can cache that at topology buildup
        sd = highest_flag_domain(cpu, SD_WAKE_AFFINE);

        if (cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sched_domain_span(sd) &&
            cpu != prev_cpu)
                new_cpu = wake_affine();

        // Directly go to select_idle_sibling()
        goto sis;
}

// !want_affine logic here
---

As for the !want_affine part, we could either keep the current domain walk
(IIUC this is what you are suggesting) or go for the extra cached pointers
I'm introducing.

Now if we are a bit bolder than that, because there are no more
(mainline) topologies w/ SD_BALANCE_WAKE, we could even turn the above
into:

---
if (wake_flags & WF_TTWU) {
        if (want_affine) {
                // We can cache that at topology buildup
                sd = highest_flag_domain(cpu, SD_WAKE_AFFINE);

                if (cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sched_domain_span(sd) &&
                    cpu != prev_cpu)
                        new_cpu = wake_affine();

        }
        // Directly go to select_idle_sibling()
        goto sis;
}

// !want_affine logic here
---

This in turns mean we could get rid of SD_BALANCE_WAKE entirely... I'm a
bit more reluctant to that only because the last SD_BALANCE_WAKE setter was
removed fairly recently, see
  a526d466798d ("sched/topology: Remove SD_BALANCE_WAKE on asymmetric capacity systems")

  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-16 15:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-15 21:05 [PATCH v3 0/9] sched: Streamline select_task_rq() & select_task_rq_fair() Valentin Schneider
2020-04-15 21:05 ` [PATCH v3 1/9] sched/fair: find_idlest_group(): Remove unused sd_flag parameter Valentin Schneider
2020-04-16  7:40   ` Vincent Guittot
2020-05-01 18:22   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Valentin Schneider
2020-04-15 21:05 ` [PATCH v3 2/9] sched/debug: Make sd->flags sysctl read-only Valentin Schneider
2020-05-01 18:22   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Valentin Schneider
2020-04-15 21:05 ` [PATCH v3 3/9] sched: Remove checks against SD_LOAD_BALANCE Valentin Schneider
2020-05-01 18:22   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Valentin Schneider
2020-04-15 21:05 ` [PATCH v3 4/9] sched/topology: Kill SD_LOAD_BALANCE Valentin Schneider
2020-05-01 18:22   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Valentin Schneider
2020-04-15 21:05 ` [PATCH v3 5/9] sched: Add WF_TTWU, WF_EXEC wakeup flags Valentin Schneider
2020-04-15 21:05 ` [PATCH v3 6/9] sched: Kill select_task_rq()'s sd_flag parameter Valentin Schneider
2020-04-16  7:42   ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-16 10:24     ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-16 10:47     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 11:43       ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-15 21:05 ` [PATCH v3 7/9] sched/fair: Dissociate wakeup decisions from SD flag value Valentin Schneider
2020-04-15 21:05 ` [PATCH v3 8/9] sched/fair: Split select_task_rq_fair want_affine logic Valentin Schneider
2020-04-15 21:05 ` [PATCH v3 9/9] sched/topology: Define and use shortcut pointers for wakeup sd_flag scan Valentin Schneider
2020-04-16  7:46   ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-16 10:24     ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-16 13:04       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-04-16 13:36         ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-16 15:27           ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2020-04-16 15:58             ` Vincent Guittot
2020-04-16 20:54               ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-16 10:58 ` [PATCH v3 0/9] sched: Streamline select_task_rq() & select_task_rq_fair() Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 11:00   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 11:02     ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-16 13:00     ` Vincent Guittot

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=jhjv9lz78nv.mognet@arm.com \
    --to=valentin.schneider@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

Powered by JetHome