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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1530699470-29808-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
 <1530699470-29808-13-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtDUa7nARKxT+hR_ci3J_exE85sZFT1oEM84akZ+i_-UgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180706143139.GE8596@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <CAKfTPtB1YGoYwNyXXs5_+0Lc3KiDZ1g=5nXsa_Y03pJEbQ+jgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <fd8c6bc2-3a1c-3572-7082-bc51c8f87ae9@arm.com> <CAKfTPtA3_yBf-NjPJcZUw=ijhq-HBa0A9U=Djcc_K1XQz45EPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b7c78d65-ab85-36ce-6da6-d10e5113c4a3@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <b7c78d65-ab85-36ce-6da6-d10e5113c4a3@arm.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:30:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCfzpbcxzbMiOxd3kXWaES2+ai6vUEXET0++5W-mWDUdA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 12/12] sched/core: Disable SD_PREFER_SIBLING on
 asymmetric cpu capacity domains
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc:     Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        gaku.inami.xh@renesas.com,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 12:53, Valentin Schneider
<valentin.schneider@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 06/08/18 11:20, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Hi Valentin,
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 at 14:33, Valentin Schneider
> > <valentin.schneider@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 31/07/18 13:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> This can easily happen with SD_PREFER_SIBLING enabled too so I wouldn't
> >>>> say that this patch breaks anything that isn't broken already. In fact
> >>>> we this happening with and without this patch applied.
> >>>
> >>> At least for the use case  above, this doesn't happen when
> >>> SD_PREFER_SIBLING is set
> >>>
> >>
> >> On my HiKey960 I can see coscheduling on a big CPU while a LITTLE is free
> >> with **and** without SD_PREFER_SIBLING. Having it set only means that in
> >> some cases the imbalance will be re-classified as group_overloaded instead
> >> of group_misfit_task, so we'll skip the misfit logic when we shouldn't (this
> >> happens on Juno for instance).
> >
> > Can you give more details about your test case ?
> >
>
> I've been running the same test case as presented in the cover letter on
> my HiKey960 but with sched_switch tracing and with no tasksets. I've just
> re-run the testcase with tasksets and I get similar results (i.e. a big
> with coscheduling while a LITTLE is free) with or without the flag.
>
> >>
> >> It does nothing for the "1 task per CPU" problem that Morten described above.
> >> When you have this little amount of tasks, load isn't very relevant, but it
> >> skews the load-balancer into thinking the LITTLE CPUs are more busy than
> >> the bigs even though there's an idle one in the lot.

ok. I meant  that without misfit patch, SD_PREFER_SIBLING ensures 1
task per CPU and no co scheduling. But co scheduling appears with
misfit task patchset

Vincent
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Morten