Message-ID: <1436883466.7983.17.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: beef up wake_wide()
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>, riel@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
        kernel-team <Kernel-team@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:17:46 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20150714140710.GL19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1436241678.1836.29.camel@gmail.com>
	 <1436262224.1836.74.camel@gmail.com> <559C0700.6090009@fb.com>
	 <1436336026.3767.53.camel@gmail.com>
	 <20150709132654.GE3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <1436505566.5715.50.camel@gmail.com> <55A03232.2090500@fb.com>
	 <1436584311.3429.7.camel@gmail.com>
	 <20150714111905.GJ3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <1436881757.7983.12.camel@gmail.com>
	 <20150714140710.GL19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2042
Lines: 59

On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 16:07 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:49:17PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 13:19 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > OK, how about something like the below; it tightens things up by
> > > applying two rules:
> > > 
> > >  - We really should not continue looking for a balancing domain once
> > >    SD_LOAD_BALANCE is not set.
> > > 
> > >  - SD (balance) flags should really be set in a single contiguous range,
> > >    always starting at the bottom.
> > > 
> > > The latter means what if !want_affine and the (first) sd doesn't have
> > > BALANCE_WAKE set, we're done. Getting rid of (most of) that iteration
> > > junk you didn't like..
> > > 
> > > Hmm?
> > 
> > Yeah, that's better.  It's not big hairy deal either way, it just bugged
> > me to knowingly toss those cycles out the window ;-)
> > 
> > select_idle_sibling() looks kinda funny down there, but otoh when the
> > day comes (hah) that we can just balance, it's closer to the exit.
> 
> Right, not too pretty, does this look beter?

There's a buglet, I was just about to mention the inverse in the other.


> @@ -5041,17 +5037,17 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *
>  
>  		if (tmp->flags & sd_flag)
>  			sd = tmp;
> +		else if (!want_affine)
> +			break;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (affine_sd && cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
> -		prev_cpu = cpu;
> +	if (affine_sd) { /* Prefer affinity over any other flags */
> +		if (cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
> +			new_cpu = cpu;
>  
> -	if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) {
> -		new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu);
> -		goto unlock;
> -	}
> +		new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, new_cpu);

We'll not look for a idle cpu when wake_wide() naks want_affine.

	-Mike

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/