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> <CAKfTPtCXXGEDNG+YxBbRG4vFK1+ig5EBzntmyTxr7MbQw-Q7MA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtCXXGEDNG+YxBbRG4vFK1+ig5EBzntmyTxr7MbQw-Q7MA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jul 2020 19:53:19 +0800
Message-ID: <CAPJCdBm=FJp8K1SubXP4Rfa-POr8hDh320faE+4Cjcjk3BL1JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: consider sched-idle CPU when selecting idle core
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
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 18:34, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> 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
Indeed, the complexity is not worth.
Thanks for the explanation.

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