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 V3 2/2] sched/fair: Fallback to sched-idle CPU if idle CPU
 isn't found
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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
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>
 <20190702083517.GY3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <1fe415a7-a396-508c-f459-0ddcc36f3360@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:32:27 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190702083517.GY3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 7/2/19 1:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

OK makes sense.

Thanks,
Subhra