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 1/3] sched/fair: Add asymmetric CPU capacity wakeup
 scan
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        morten.rasmussen@arm.com, qperret@google.com,
        adharmap@codeaurora.org
References: <20200126200934.18712-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
 <20200126200934.18712-2-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
 <20200128062245.GA27398@codeaurora.org>
 <1ed322d6-0325-ecac-cc68-326a14b8c1dd@arm.com>
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Message-ID: <1aa14491-517e-92d2-08b0-568338d75812@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:38:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1ed322d6-0325-ecac-cc68-326a14b8c1dd@arm.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 28/01/2020 12:30, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Hi Pavan,
> 
> On 28/01/2020 06:22, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>> Hi Valentin,
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 08:09:32PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:

[...]

>>> +
>>> +	if (!static_branch_unlikely(&sched_asym_cpucapacity))
>>> +		return -1;

We do need this one to bail out quickly on non CPU asym systems. (1)

>>> +	sd = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_asym_cpucapacity, target));
>>> +	if (!sd)
>>> +		return -1;

And I assume we can't return target here because of exclusive cpusets
which can form symmetric CPU capacities islands on a CPU asymmetric
system? (2)

>>> +	sync_entity_load_avg(&p->se);
>>> +
>>> +	cpus = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(select_idle_mask);
>>> +	cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
>>> +
>>> +	for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target) {
>>> +		rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>>> +
>>> +		if (!available_idle_cpu(cpu))
>>> +			continue;
>>> +		if (task_fits_capacity(p, rq->cpu_capacity))
>>> +			return cpu;
>>
>> I have couple of questions.

[...]

>> (2) Assuming all CPUs are busy, we return -1 from here and end up
>> calling select_idle_cpu(). The traversal in select_idle_cpu() may be
>> waste in cases where sd_llc == sd_asym_cpucapacity . For example SDM845.
>> Should we worry about this?
>>
> 
> Before v3, since we didn't have the fallback CPU selection within
> select_idle_capacity(), we would need the fall-through to select_idle_cpu()
> (we could've skipped an idle CPU just because its capacity wasn't high
> enough).
> 
> That's not the case anymore, so indeed we may be able to bail out of
> select_idle_sibling() right after select_idle_capacity() (or after the
> prev / recent_used_cpu checks). Our only requirement here is that sd_llc
> remains a subset of sd_asym_cpucapacity.

How do you distinguish '-1' in (1), (2) and 'best_cpu = -1' (3)?

In (1) and (2) you want to check if target is idle (or sched_idle) but
in (3) you probably only want to check 'recent_used_cpu'?