Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:a0d1:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp4542818pxa; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:37:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzkoSu5zIxphkRNhpYWfqHC3bbtWmiz5mahthTbXRWuJHlPJfVUsrVIRhk5vdYA8bDmMUgu X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d596:: with SMTP id r22mr22607270edq.204.1597084638824; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:37:18 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1597084638; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=bmrevCEhB/CPM//HIzKFTyDFZ87/GaAhUWtGQQVRotJDcpInXNnFPlq4M1e5EXMbcm 03Hu24um5Ri3VyvDTrgVWbTBuZ3u5qMohIJwxomRtRmDZPEdhxuwlLollx/n/1rsjP9/ C+5u7nSxvDO/WvkBLDCojZMGNiWVYAyWz45SAdKPCP6qoY80Wtl9pF3FLPngQsjEQ59q jdXkjtf4bDOugh3qzORNmaF+r0KdrYny3Ut+OEPaE6Fw+xu7oeA3EPhL9mpj4v33LJpO aQKhWgyAKVEXxIp4rT35BMb1UkYsPKrqH9gHzfCNgoDaEeCAkE8kSwwJSHze0NEuhFVF FivA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:message-id:date:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:user-agent:references; bh=YfquSXMsUcvcyOF3hfYK9CJ+L+KLv5553hTbUVe2QJg=; b=M08rl+IVd+LQAyeokd0Z4q8UXURmzEib3nPm/GrY6C4NV+l2OdUjygHTBzeR2l3zmW s17ScyEko2pANYkdGE9OdXy2dhzyoyt0yWPL7DHo8NF6bCvBGekFGl+d9VnMMQhHqoaF NIoheYkh6j8ZlyUpGT+KLd8F2IF27cwEA34rrryuCgtanbbcdyQ2ca11KskvclS+Gjm1 8Hwi3BJkOqT5A1/k3SBCBJYA80guCKrvWsOp1loH8H9xJaLQJuFT4WH/MQvEq8fP+RQA VlvTz+xnKLCa/TlKrFKP+6eELiNr0N8wBdBFJYIvr4TOg/6O8PUj0S8pSu5CFzMTTuRm ga4g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t7si2033839edj.423.2020.08.10.11.36.56; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:37:18 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728187AbgHJSd2 (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 14:33:28 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:58680 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728103AbgHJSd2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 14:33:28 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6F21063; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e113632-lin (e113632-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.194.46]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A3C33F6CF; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:33:26 -0700 (PDT) References: <20200810010009.92758-1-arch0.zheng@gmail.com> User-agent: mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 26.3 From: Valentin Schneider To: Qi Zheng Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Remove the duplicate check from group_has_capacity() In-reply-to: <20200810010009.92758-1-arch0.zheng@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:33:20 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/08/20 02:00, Qi Zheng wrote: > 1. The group_has_capacity() function is only called in > group_classify(). > 2. The following inequality has already been checked in > group_is_overloaded() which was also called in > group_classify(). > > (sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) < > (sgs->group_runnable * 100) > Consider group_is_overloaded() returns false because of the first condition: if (sgs->sum_nr_running <= sgs->group_weight) return false; then group_has_capacity() would be the first place where the group_runnable vs group_capacity comparison would be done. Now in that specific case we'll actually only check it if sgs->sum_nr_running == sgs->group_weight and the only case where the runnable vs capacity check can fail here is if there's significant capacity pressure going on. TBH this capacity pressure could be happening even when there are fewer tasks than CPUs, so I'm not sure how intentional that corner case is. For the sgs->sum_nr_running > sgs->group_weight case I agree with your patch, there just is that oddity at the == case. > So just remove the duplicate check from group_has_capacity(). > > Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng > --- > kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > index 2ba8f230feb9..a41903fb327a 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > @@ -8234,10 +8234,6 @@ group_has_capacity(unsigned int imbalance_pct, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs) > if (sgs->sum_nr_running < sgs->group_weight) > return true; > > - if ((sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) < > - (sgs->group_runnable * 100)) > - return false; > - > if ((sgs->group_capacity * 100) > > (sgs->group_util * imbalance_pct)) > return true;