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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1572437285.git.vpillai@digitalocean.com>
 <5e3cea14-28d1-bf1e-cabe-fb5b48fdeadc@linux.intel.com> <3c3c56c1-b8dc-652c-535e-74f6dcf45560@linux.intel.com>
 <CANaguZAz+mw1Oi8ecZt+JuCWbf=g5UvKrdSvAeM82Z1c+9oWAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e322a252-f983-e3f3-f823-16d0c16b2867@linux.intel.com> <20200212230705.GA25315@sinkpad>
 <29d43466-1e18-6b42-d4d0-20ccde20ff07@linux.intel.com> <CAERHkruG4y8si9FrBp7cZNEdfP7EzxbmYwvdF2EvHLf=mU1mgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANaguZC40mDHfL1H_9AA7H8cyd028t9PQVRqQ3kB4ha8R7hhqg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANaguZC40mDHfL1H_9AA7H8cyd028t9PQVRqQ3kB4ha8R7hhqg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:01:36 +0800
Message-ID: <CAERHkruPUrOzDjEp1FV3KY20p9CxLAVzKrZNe5QXsCFZdGskzA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBXZWlzYmVja2Vy?= <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@google.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:05 PM Vineeth Remanan Pillai
<vpillai@digitalocean.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Aubrey,
>
> Thanks for the updated patches. Merged the changes to our testing branch
> in preparation for v5.
>
>>
>> I added a helper to check task and cpu cookie match, including the
>> entire core idle case. The refined patchset updated at here:
>> https://github.com/aubreyli/linux/tree/coresched_v4-v5.5.2
>
>
> I did not go through all the changes thoroughly, but on a quick glance,
> I feel a small change would optimize it a bit.
>
> +       /*
> +        * A CPU in an idle core is always the best choice for tasks with
> +        * cookies, and ignore cookie match if core scheduler is not enabled
> +        * on the CPU.
> +        */
> +       if (idle_core || !sched_core_enabled(rq))
> +               return true;
> +
> +       return rq->core->core_cookie == p->core_cookie;
> +}
> +
>
> I think check for sched_core_enabled would make sense to be done above the
> for loop. Something like this:
>
> +static inline bool sched_core_cookie_match(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> +       bool idle_core = true;
> +       int cpu;
> +
> +       if (!sched_core_enabled(rq))
> +               return true;
> +
> +       for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_smt_mask(cpu_of(rq))) {
> +               if (!available_idle_cpu(cpu)) {
> +                       idle_core = false;
> +                       break;
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       /*
> +        * A CPU in an idle core is always the best choice for tasks with
> +        * cookies.
> +        */
> +       return idle_core || rq->core->core_cookie == p->core_cookie;
> +}
> +
>
> We can avoid the unnecessary check for idle_core is sched_core is disabled.
> This would optimize in case of systems with lots of cpus.
>
> Please let me know!

Yes, this makes sense, patch updated at here, I put your name there if
you don't mind.
https://github.com/aubreyli/linux/tree/coresched_v4-v5.5.2-rc2

Thanks,
-Aubrey