Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] sched/fair: consider RT/IRQ pressure in
 select_idle_sibling
To:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, steven.sistare@oracle.com,
        dhaval.giani@oracle.com,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        "Cc: EAS Dev" <eas-dev@lists.linaro.org>
References: <1517268429-933-1-git-send-email-rohit.k.jain@oracle.com>
 <CAJWu+opnNgfVxhgHwLft_qcLMeikEAbNY0zci0WtgQiFkVVjhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6967b972-129a-a7f0-06ab-c48dc9709726@oracle.com>
 <CAJWu+orYPDy3H2TCtB_FZWrMx18F_ePnD=Gdfj=pKg4HVaLjTQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Rohit Jain <rohit.k.jain@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <c78b1dab-95fb-ed88-30de-b4d489a5fc17@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 09:50:56 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+orYPDy3H2TCtB_FZWrMx18F_ePnD=Gdfj=pKg4HVaLjTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 01/30/2018 05:57 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:

<snip>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rohit Jain<rohit.k.jain@oracle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    kernel/sched/fair.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>>>    1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> index 26a71eb..ce5ccf8 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>> @@ -5625,6 +5625,11 @@ static unsigned long capacity_orig_of(int cpu)
>>>>           return cpu_rq(cpu)->cpu_capacity_orig;
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> +static inline bool full_capacity(int cpu)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       return capacity_of(cpu) >= (capacity_orig_of(cpu)*3)/4;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    static unsigned long cpu_avg_load_per_task(int cpu)
>>>>    {
>>>>           struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>>>> @@ -6081,7 +6086,7 @@ static int select_idle_core(struct task_struct *p,
>>>> struct sched_domain *sd, int
>>>>
>>>>                   for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(core)) {
>>>>                           cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, cpus);
>>>> -                       if (!idle_cpu(cpu))
>>>> +                       if (!idle_cpu(cpu) || !full_capacity(cpu))
>>>>                                   idle = false;
>>>>                   }
>>> There's some difference in logic between select_idle_core and
>>> select_idle_cpu as far as the full_capacity stuff you're adding goes.
>>> In select_idle_core, if all CPUs are !full_capacity, you're returning
>>> -1. But in select_idle_cpu you're returning the best idle CPU that's
>>> the most cap among the !full_capacity ones. Why there is this
>>> different in logic? Did I miss something?
>>>

<snip>

> Dude :) That is hardly an answer to the question I asked. Hint:
> *different in logic*.

Let me re-try :)

For select_idle_core, we are doing a search for a fully idle and full
capacity core, the fail-safe is select_idle_cpu because we will re-scan
the CPUs. The notion is to select an idle CPU no matter what, because
being on an idle CPU is better than waiting on a non-idle one. In
select_idle_core you can be slightly picky about the core because
select_idle_cpu is a fail safe. I measured the performance impact of
choosing the "best among low cap" vs the code changes I have (for
select_idle_core) and could not find a statistically significant impact,
hence went with the simpler code changes.

Hope I answered your question.

Thanks,
Rohit