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:   Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:35:17 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, tkjos@google.com,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        quentin.perret@linaro.org, chris.redpath@arm.com,
        steven.sistare@oracle.com, songliubraving@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] sched/fair: Fallback to sched-idle CPU if idle
 CPU isn't found
Message-ID: <20190702083517.GY3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cover.1561523542.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <eeafa25fdeb6f6edd5b2da716bc8f0ba7708cbcf.1561523542.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <32bd769c-b692-8896-5cc9-d19ab0a23abb@oracle.com>
 <20190701080349.homlsgia4fuaitek@vireshk-i7>
 <aeaa0dd5-8512-1b60-eb10-6a4aecfaaca3@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aeaa0dd5-8512-1b60-eb10-6a4aecfaaca3@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 03:08:41PM -0700, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
> On 7/1/19 1:03 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 28-06-19, 18:16, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
> > > On 6/25/19 10:06 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:

> > > > @@ -5376,6 +5376,15 @@ static struct {
> > > >    #endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON */
> > > > +/* CPU only has SCHED_IDLE tasks enqueued */
> > > > +static int sched_idle_cpu(int cpu)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > > > +
> > > > +	return unlikely(rq->nr_running == rq->cfs.idle_h_nr_running &&
> > > > +			rq->nr_running);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > Shouldn't this check if rq->curr is also sched idle?
> > Why wouldn't the current set of checks be enough to guarantee that ?
> I thought nr_running does not include the on-cpu thread.

It very much does.

> > > And why not drop the rq->nr_running non zero check?
> > Because CPU isn't sched-idle if nr_running and idle_h_nr_running are both 0,
> > i.e. it is an IDLE cpu in that case. And so I thought it is important to have
> > this check as well.
> > 
> idle_cpu() not only checks nr_running is 0 but also rq->curr == rq->idle

idle_cpu() will try very hard to declare a CPU !idle. But I don't see
how that it relevant. sched_idle_cpu() will only return true if there
are only SCHED_IDLE tasks on the CPU. Viresh's test is simple and
straight forward.