Received: by 2002:ac0:a5b6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m51-v6csp3500015imm; Sun, 17 Jun 2018 22:01:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLOCwPnva7M+7pWQYvy9CPQteVqIOcJdHPVVyiKa64Wun5VDPjVIB0TlxZdA5NgMwQ4BbwU X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:3303:: with SMTP id a3-v6mr12457355plc.209.1529298090189; Sun, 17 Jun 2018 22:01:30 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1529298090; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=1LVwl2xqwBb0+GX7tRPJeUI9HIeCCjiBaJNw7dnyx7EqSHvHyPNI/RpGQP7CjCklqQ 5Ff/h01x4Lm7hIYj5rr2fYYRuLxNy6EpfhFCudqllf0RPL2ybMVQrpLaia22CfZFNhOm iygQw4+4vd2DqwIIj9VDP5AamEiNDIZbnjV6RCt4MQ2utK8Z6fqO1G0BG0JtSaTRM5XF RjmFIIgqExxPj6i+rxFYDLu4Vd65xsbvV34NaXCHN30Cj8dzKCWs/f7kDmn4ZfWykHtK n6apw9pXyZbDxssyxzcDZffJBfOA+XV2OTKX1txAFpHyQ9dC+7UEgqbyxEPiEMGT466L PftA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:references:in-reply-to:message-id:date :subject:cc:to:from:arc-authentication-results; bh=e/GqA19N2mZ4qxm12m+Wy+vaZ2DEI+qKCDP/kGxIULY=; b=unpKJe6pE9wts5txDSZb+4Pw6iVYgl+8lCKUGEVNTwZIBtUYPij9l4rC+JEre/06s6 LiSjnBRNkrpQ8ply7gfg4Vn/o79f9xkHAhQzdji2jc26aSpedsOiOfOoRKjY7J9oSi2y vU5aCdi4fgFnY+6pPV/wN7CJ6mth/V6Oo9Gz0ofNy34PuAVRzxPTErIXb7iG4UDwi+4+ P+UnFkHb3WQovsB0ngrh9o7N8j8IZBYErJKrI0GflUCuGv9xzSYTBFIwYom0OenH1KJ2 tq4yhtkq2d0nWKMwtpJbeUUtEWN7B6O/cJRceo+b9HbqggKIWMSQHP2GF20uzrBZJ55z nvRQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b2-v6si11477551pgt.611.2018.06.17.22.01.16; Sun, 17 Jun 2018 22:01:30 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754810AbeFRE7D (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:59:03 -0400 Received: from lgeamrelo13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:59017 "EHLO lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754082AbeFRE6P (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:58:15 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO lgeamrelo01.lge.com) (156.147.1.125) by 156.147.23.53 with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2018 13:58:13 +0900 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.125 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (10.177.222.33) by 156.147.1.125 with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2018 13:58:13 +0900 X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com From: Byungchul Park To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, raistlin@linux.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juri.lelli@gmail.com, bristot@redhat.com, kernel-team@lge.com, joel@joelfernandes.org Subject: [RESEND PATCH v12 2/2] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq() Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:58:09 +0900 Message-Id: <1529297889-24551-3-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.9.1 In-Reply-To: <1529297889-24551-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> References: <1529297889-24551-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Steven, I've changed the code a little bit to avoid a compile warning caused by 'const' args of find_cpu(). Can I keep your Reviewed-by? BEFORE: static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask, const struct sched_domain *sd, const struct sched_domain *prefer) AFTER: static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask, struct sched_domain *sd, struct sched_domain *prefer) (I temporarily removed the Reviewed-by you gave me.) Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) -----8<----- From 205b197043085947ae30cd939bc12e436c328fe5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Byungchul Park Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 16:47:45 +0900 Subject: [RESEND PATCH v12 2/2] sched/rt: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_lowest_rq() It would be better to try to check other siblings first if SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration. Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park --- kernel/sched/rt.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c index ef3c4e6..b2aff1a 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c @@ -1623,12 +1623,33 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_highest_pushable_task(struct rq *rq, int cpu) static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, local_cpu_mask); +/* + * Find the first CPU in: mask & sd & ~prefer + */ +static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask, + struct sched_domain *sd, + struct sched_domain *prefer) +{ + int cpu; + + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) { + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd))) + continue; + if (prefer && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(prefer))) + continue; + break; + } + + return cpu; +} + static int find_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task) { - struct sched_domain *sd; + struct sched_domain *sd, *prefer = NULL; struct cpumask *lowest_mask = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(local_cpu_mask); int this_cpu = smp_processor_id(); int cpu = task_cpu(task); + int fallback_cpu = -1; /* Make sure the mask is initialized first */ if (unlikely(!lowest_mask)) @@ -1673,9 +1694,37 @@ static int find_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task) return this_cpu; } - best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(lowest_mask, - sched_domain_span(sd)); + /* + * If a CPU exists that is in the lowest_mask and + * the current sd span, but not in the prefer sd + * span, then that becomes our choice. + * + * Of course, the lowest possible CPU is already + * under consideration through lowest_mask. + */ + best_cpu = find_cpu(lowest_mask, sd, prefer); + if (best_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) { + /* + * If current domain is SD_PREFER_SIBLING + * flaged, we have to try to check other + * siblings first. + */ + if (sd->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) { + prefer = sd; + + /* + * fallback_cpu should be one + * in the closest domain among + * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains, + * in case that more than one + * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domains + * exist in the hierachy. + */ + if (fallback_cpu == -1) + fallback_cpu = best_cpu; + continue; + } rcu_read_unlock(); return best_cpu; } @@ -1684,6 +1733,29 @@ static int find_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task) rcu_read_unlock(); /* + * If fallback_cpu is valid, all our guesses failed *except* for + * SD_PREFER_SIBLING domain. Now, we can return the fallback CPU. + * + * XXX: Consider the following example, 4 cores SMT2 system: + * + * LLC [0 - 7] + * SMT [0 1][2 3][4 5][6 7] + * o x o x x x x x + * + * where 'o': occupied and 'x': empty. + * + * A wakeup on CPU0 will exclude CPU1 and choose CPU3, since + * CPU1 is in a SD_PREFER_SIBLING sd and CPU3 is not. However, + * in this case, CPU4 would have been a better choice, since + * CPU3 is a (SMT) thread of an already loaded core. + * + * Doing it 'right' is difficult and expensive. The current + * solution is an acceptable approximation. + */ + if (fallback_cpu != -1) + return fallback_cpu; + + /* * And finally, if there were no matches within the domains * just give the caller *something* to work with from the compatible * locations. -- 1.9.1