Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
References: <20200428050242.17717-1-swood@redhat.com> <20200428050242.17717-2-swood@redhat.com> <jhjftcns35d.mognet@arm.com> <2a30101cc0adb63ee7ce7b32119579d78de24b71.camel@redhat.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 26.3
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To:     Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Call newidle_balance() from finish_task_switch()
Message-ID: <jhjtv12pklx.mognet@arm.com>
In-reply-to: <2a30101cc0adb63ee7ce7b32119579d78de24b71.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:00:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 28/04/20 23:33, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 22:37 +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 28/04/20 06:02, Scott Wood wrote:
>> > Thus, newidle_balance() is entered with interrupts enabled, which allows
>> > (in the next patch) enabling interrupts when the lock is dropped.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
>> > ---
>> >  kernel/sched/core.c  |  7 ++++---
>> >  kernel/sched/fair.c  | 45 ++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>> >  kernel/sched/sched.h |  6 ++----
>> >  3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> > index 9a2fbf98fd6f..0294beb8d16c 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> > @@ -3241,6 +3241,10 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct
>> > task_struct *prev)
>> >       }
>> >
>> >       tick_nohz_task_switch();
>> > +
>> > +	if (is_idle_task(current))
>> > +		newidle_balance();
>> > +
>>
>> This means we must go through a switch_to(idle) before figuring out we
>> could've switched to a CFS task, and do it then. I'm curious to see the
>> performance impact of that.
>
> Any particular benchmark I should try?
>

I'm going to be very original and suggest hackbench :-)

That would just be the first stop however, you would also want to try
something less wakeup-intensive, maybe sysbench and the like - I'm thinking
if you spawn ~1.5*nr_cpu_ids CPU-hogs, you'll hit that double switch fairly
easily.

And then there's always the big boys benchmarks like specjbb and co - I'd
suggest having a look at Mel's mmtests.