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: [RFC PATCH 7/9] sched: search SMT before LLC domain
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        steven.sistare@oracle.com, dhaval.giani@oracle.com,
        daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        viresh.kumar@linaro.org, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net, parth@linux.ibm.com,
        patrick.bellasi@arm.com
References: <20190830174944.21741-1-subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
 <20190830174944.21741-8-subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
 <20190905093127.GI2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <fadf55b2-c825-8636-6c9a-6eedf9a20733@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 13:40:47 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190905093127.GI2349@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 9/5/19 2:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:49:42AM -0700, subhra mazumdar wrote:
>> Search SMT siblings before all CPUs in LLC domain for idle CPU. This helps
>> in L1 cache locality.
>> ---
>>   kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 8856503..94dd4a32 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -6274,11 +6274,11 @@ static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int target)
>>   			return i;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	i = select_idle_cpu(p, sd, target);
>> +	i = select_idle_smt(p, target);
>>   	if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>>   		return i;
>>   
>> -	i = select_idle_smt(p, target);
>> +	i = select_idle_cpu(p, sd, target);
>>   	if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
>>   		return i;
>>   
> But it is absolutely conceptually wrong. An idle core is a much better
> target than an idle sibling.
This is select_idle_smt not select_idle_core.