Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S933749AbcK2O55 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:57:57 -0500
Received: from mail-wj0-f177.google.com ([209.85.210.177]:33393 "EHLO
        mail-wj0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S933468AbcK2O5s (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:57:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <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>
 <20161129145041.GC1716@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:57:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDNGTgbqN73oQeDhHeTPd+skBHTeFndt=db-tpOgDK+fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] sched: fix find_idlest_group for fork
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1675
Lines: 46

On 29 November 2016 at 15:50, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com> wrote:
> 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.

Thanks

>
> Morten