Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:07:57 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>, mingo@kernel.org,
        joel.opensrc@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        juri.lelli@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING
 on find_later_rq()
Message-ID: <20170821140757.opm2cnqmwuk5jdcv@e106622-lin>
References: <1503044519-2804-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <1503044519-2804-2-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20170821134458.gocjoobaybb45egi@e106622-lin>
 <20170821135645.y3ppzdyewwbecvvx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170821135645.y3ppzdyewwbecvvx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 865
Lines: 28

On 21/08/17 15:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> 
> > Also, I'm not sure what Peter meant with
> > 
> > "But still this isn't quite right, because when we consider this for SMT
> > (as was the intent here) we'll happily occupy a full sibling core over
> > finding an empty one."
> 
> Consider a 4 core, SMT2 system:
> 
> LLC	[0         -         7]
> 
> SMT	[0,1] [2,3] [4,5] [6,7]
> 
> If we do a wake-up on CPU0, we'll find CPU1, mark that as fallback,
> continue up the domain tree, exclude 0,1 from 0-7 and find CPU2.
> 
> A next wakeup on CPU0 does the same and will find CPU3, fully loading
> that core, instead of considering CPU4 first.
> 

Ah, right, I see. Thanks for explaining.

Byungchul, maybe you could add this explanation as a comment?

> Doing this 'right' is difficult and expensive :-/
>