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;
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:39:27 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
To:     Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@foss.arm.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        valentin.schneider@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched: Add static_key for asymmetric cpu capacity
 optimizations
Message-ID: <20180216173927.GA5352@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1518711654-23503-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
 <1518711654-23503-2-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
 <20180216134704.GE25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180216154101.GE28799@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180216154101.GE28799@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Morten,

On Friday 16 Feb 2018 at 15:41:01 (+0000), Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:20:48PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > +static void update_asym_cpucapacity(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (!static_branch_unlikely(&sched_asym_cpucapacity) &&
> > > +	    lowest_flag_domain(cpu, SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY))
> > > +		static_branch_enable(&sched_asym_cpucapacity);
> > > +}
> > 
> > That looks odd, why not just:
> > 
> > 	if (lowest_flag_domain(cpu, SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY))
> > 		static_branch_enable(&sched_asym_cpucapacity);
> 
> I actually had that initially and then I misread the implementation of
> static_key_enable() as if it trigger the WARN_ON_ONCE() condition if I
> enable an already enabled static key. But I see now that it should be
> safe to do.

AFAIU it should be safe, but without your check you'll have to go through
cpus_read_lock()/unlock() every time a CPU is hotplugged. There is probably
no good reason to re-do that again and again if the state of the key
never changes. I don't know how expensive those lock/unlock operations are,
but I bet they are more expensive than testing static_branch_unlikely() :)

> 
> > ? possibly with:
> > 
> > 	else
> > 		static_branch_disable(&sched_asym_cpucapacity);
> > 
> > if you want to play funny games :-)
> 
> I thought about that too. It could make certain hotplug scenarios even
> more expensive. I think we want the sched_asym_cpucapacity code to behave
> even if SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY isn't set anywhere, so the static key would
> be permanently from the point we detect asymmetry and leave it set. This
> would be in line with how the smt static key works.

Thanks !
Quentin