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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200723233853.48815-1-humjb_1983@163.com> <CAKfTPtCnewaivay7bftUY27+-qB=ct3eSNEoZW=-2Z6k0S4B4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPJCdBnv4W5+u6OZ4vbAdJ2U8ubhfAU7+Zt0JUFjfxKEDuGJSw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPJCdBnv4W5+u6OZ4vbAdJ2U8ubhfAU7+Zt0JUFjfxKEDuGJSw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:33:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCXXGEDNG+YxBbRG4vFK1+ig5EBzntmyTxr7MbQw-Q7MA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: consider sched-idle CPU when selecting idle core
To:     Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jiang Biao <humjb_1983@163.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 10:12, Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:24, Vincent Guittot
> <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 01:39, Jiang Biao <humjb_1983@163.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> > >
> > > Sched-idle CPU has been considered in select_idle_cpu and
> > > select_idle_smt, it also needs to be considered in select_idle_core to
> > > be consistent and keep the same *idle* policy.
> >
> > In the case of select_idle_core, we are looking for a core that is
> > fully idle but if one CPU of the core is running a sched_idle task,
> > the core will not be idle and we might end up having  the wakeup task
> > on a CPU and a sched_idle task on another CPU of the core which is not
> > what we want
> Got it. sched_idle task may interfere its sibling, which brings me
> another question,
> If there's a core with smt1 running sched_idle task and smt2 idle,
> selecting smt1
> rather than smt2 should be more helpful for wakee task, because wakee task
> could suppress the sched_idle task without neighbour interfering.

But the sched_idle will then probably quickly move on the idle smt2

> And there seems to be no consideration about that currently.
> Is it worth improving that?

This will complexify and extend the duration of the search loop  and
as mentioned above, it will most probably be a nop at the end because
of sched_idle task moving on smt2

>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Regards,
> Jiang