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: [PATCH v4 04/10] sched/fair: Dynamically update cfs_overload_cpus
To:     Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org
Cc:     subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com, dhaval.giani@oracle.com,
        daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com, pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com,
        matt@codeblueprint.co.uk, umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com,
        riel@redhat.com, jbacik@fb.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, quentin.perret@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1544131696-2888-1-git-send-email-steven.sistare@oracle.com>
 <1544131696-2888-5-git-send-email-steven.sistare@oracle.com>
 <3ec57357-dc4e-be1b-963f-abcf760ecc5a@arm.com>
 <b72240f1-1067-025c-50ca-b231637d8657@oracle.com>
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Message-ID: <8e032913-a426-0f32-6c68-a183bfc7ed66@arm.com>
Date:   Sat, 8 Dec 2018 18:47:13 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b72240f1-1067-025c-50ca-b231637d8657@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 07/12/2018 22:35, Steven Sistare wrote:
[...]
>>> @@ -4468,8 +4495,12 @@ static void throttle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>>>  			dequeue = 0;
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>> -	if (!se)
>>> +	if (!se) {
>>>  		sub_nr_running(rq, task_delta);
>>> +		if (prev_nr >= 2 && prev_nr - task_delta < 2)
>>> +			overload_clear(rq);
>>> +
>>> +	}
>>
>> Eventually it'd be nice to squash those into {add, sub}_nr_running(), but
>> you already mentioned wanting to stick to CFS for now, so I don't think
>> it's *too* much of a big deal.
> 
> Maybe.  It depends on a design decision to be made if/when we add bitmap
> based stealing to other scheduling classes.  Do we maintain one bitmap
> for overloaded CPUs where the overload may be caused by any mix of different
> task classes?  If yes, then the bitmap search for one class such as RT
> will inspect and reject overloaded CPUs that only have CFS tasks, which 
> making the search less efficient.  I am leaning towards a separate bitmap 
> per class to avoid that.
> 

Didn't ponder too much about it, but a bitmap per class sounds sane. My
comment was mostly about saving ourselves the need to decorate every
{add, sub}_nr_running() call with overload_{set, clear}() calls.

> - Steve
>   
>