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 00/10] sched/fair: rework the CFS load balance
To:     Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
        Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
References: <20191021075038.GA27361@gmail.com>
 <CAKfTPtCcvKuf1Gt0W-BeEbQxFP_co14jdv_L5zEpS==Ecibabg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191024123844.GB2708@pauld.bos.csb> <20191024134650.GD2708@pauld.bos.csb>
 <CAKfTPtB0VruWXq+wGgvNOMFJvvZQiZyi2AgBoJP3Uaeduu2Lqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191025133325.GA2421@pauld.bos.csb>
 <CAKfTPtDWV7AkzMNuJtkN-pLmDcK41LwNiX0Wr8UT+vMFHAx6Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191030143937.GC1686@pauld.bos.csb>
 <564ca629-5c34-dbd1-8e64-2da6910b18a3@arm.com>
 <bf96be8a-2358-b9ab-b8eb-d0b8b94ed0d7@arm.com>
 <20191030171914.GF1686@pauld.bos.csb>
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Message-ID: <4c52d81f-4b3b-d7e8-c124-b90b4584a6d3@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:25:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191030171914.GF1686@pauld.bos.csb>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 30/10/2019 18:19, Phil Auld wrote:
>> Well from the code nobody but us (asymmetric capacity systems) set
>> SD_BALANCE_WAKE. I was however curious if there were some folks who set it
>> with out of tree code for some reason.
>>
>> As Dietmar said, not having SD_BALANCE_WAKE means you'll never go through
>> the slow path on wakeups, because there is no domain with SD_BALANCE_WAKE for
>> the domain loop to find. Depending on your topology you most likely will
>> go through it on fork or exec though.
>>
>> IOW wake_wide() is not really widening the wakeup scan on wakeups using
>> mainline topology code (disregarding asymmetric capacity systems), which
>> sounds a bit... off.
> 
> Thanks. It's not currently set. I'll set it and re-run to see if it makes
> a difference. 
> 

Note that it might do more harm than good, it's not set in the default
topology because it's too aggressive, see 

  182a85f8a119 ("sched: Disable wakeup balancing")

> 
> However, I'm not sure why it would be making a difference for only the cgroup
> case. If this is causing issues I'd expect it to effect both runs. 
> 
> In general I think these threads want to wake up the last cpu they were on.
> And given there are fewer cpu bound tasks that CPUs that wake cpu should,
> more often than not, be idle. 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Phil
> 
> 
>