Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:50:42 +0000
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>, Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] sched: fix find_idlest_group for fork
Message-ID: <20161129145041.GC1716@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1480088073-11642-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <1480088073-11642-2-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20161129105758.GA1716@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtAo1moOvR7a=rXA=_EEbs3vLp+97PBMTS61xG=u_pnMRg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtAo1moOvR7a=rXA=_EEbs3vLp+97PBMTS61xG=u_pnMRg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1539
Lines: 42

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:04:27PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 29 November 2016 at 11:57, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 04:34:32PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> @@ -5708,13 +5708,6 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
> >>
> >>       avg_cost = this_sd->avg_scan_cost;
> >>
> >> -     /*
> >> -      * Due to large variance we need a large fuzz factor; hackbench in
> >> -      * particularly is sensitive here.
> >> -      */
> >> -     if ((avg_idle / 512) < avg_cost)
> >> -             return -1;
> >> -
> >>       time = local_clock();
> >>
> >>       for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd), target, wrap) {
> >
> > I don't quite get this fix, but it is very likely because I haven't paid
> > enough attention.
> >
> > Are you saying that removing the avg_cost check is improving hackbench
> > performance? I thought it was supposed to help hackbench? I'm confused
> > :-(
> 
> Yes, avg_cost check prevents some tasks migration at the end of the
> tests when some threads have already finished their loop letting some
> CPUs idle whereas others threads are still competing on the same CPUS

Okay, thanks.

> > Should we do the same for SD_BALANCE_EXEC?
> 
> I asked myself if i should add SD_BALANCE_EXEC but decided to only
> keep SD_BALANCE_FORK for now as no regression has been raised for now.

Fair enough.

FWIW, with the label renaming suggested by mfleming, you can add my
reviewed/acked-by if you like.

Morten