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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Remove the duplicate check from
 group_has_capacity()
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
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
References: <20200810010009.92758-1-arch0.zheng@gmail.com>
 <jhjwo26gxlb.mognet@arm.com> <9425382c-2a42-57ca-512d-c93c589dc701@gmail.com>
 <jhjv9hph3h7.mognet@arm.com> <01fe6a9b-fd3a-9b36-b2fa-6cea58415670@gmail.com>
 <jhjtux9gxh2.mognet@arm.com>
From:   Qi Zheng <arch0.zheng@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <905d8887-e79c-daf6-cbce-80fd0509e37d@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:12:17 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <jhjtux9gxh2.mognet@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020/8/11 下午8:48, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> 
> On 11/08/20 12:44, Qi Zheng wrote:
>> On 2020/8/11 下午6:38, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/08/20 04:39, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>> On 2020/8/11 上午2:33, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe some cpus in sg->cpumask are no longer active at the == case,
>>>> which causes the significant capacity pressure?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That can only happen in that short window between deactivating a CPU and
>>> not having rebuilt the sched_domains yet, which sounds quite elusive.
>>>
>>
>> In fact, at the beginning, I added unlikely() here to hint the compiler:
>>
>> -	if ((sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) <
>> -			(sgs->group_runnable * 100))
>> +	if (unlikely((sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) <
>> +			(sgs->group_runnable * 100)))
>>
>> The corresponding patch is as follows:
>>
>>        [PATCH]sched/core: add unlikely in group_has_capacity()
>>
>> Do you think it is necessary?
> 
> The "unlikely" approach has the benefit of keeping all corner cases in
> place. I was tempted to say it could still make sense to get rid of the
> extra check entirely, given that it has an impact only when:
> 
> - sum_nr_running == group_weight
> - group capacity has been noticeably reduced
> 
> If sum_nr_running < group_weight, we won't evaluate it.
> If sum_nr_running > group_weight, we either won't call into
>    group_has_capacity() or we'll have checked it already in
>    group_overloaded().
> 
> That said, it does make very much sense to check it in that ==
> case. Vincent might have a different take on this, but right now I'd say
> the unlikely approach is the safest one of the two.
> 

So what should I do next? Do I resubmit a patch with unlikely() or
add your email to the old patch([PATCH]sched/core: add unlikely in
group_has_capacity())? Or continue to wait for suggestions from
other maintainers?