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;
Date:   Fri, 27 Nov 2020 09:27:47 +1100
From:   Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Vineeth Pillai <viremana@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, kerrnel@google.com,
        Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, vineeth@bitbyteword.org,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
        Agata Gruza <agata.gruza@intel.com>,
        Antonio Gomez Iglesias <antonio.gomez.iglesias@intel.com>,
        graf@amazon.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, dfaggioli@suse.com,
        pjt@google.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, derkling@google.com,
        benbjiang@tencent.com,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
        James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, OWeisse@umich.edu,
        Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@oracle.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>, jsbarnes@google.com,
        chris.hyser@oracle.com, Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 10/32] sched: Fix priority inversion of cookied task
 with sibling
Message-ID: <20201126222710.GJ163610@balbir-desktop>
References: <20201117232003.3580179-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20201117232003.3580179-11-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20201122224123.GE110669@balbir-desktop>
 <20201124183038.GG1021337@google.com>
 <20201125230519.GC163610@balbir-desktop>
 <20201126082914.GE2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201126082914.GE2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 09:29:14AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:05:19AM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > @@ -5259,7 +5254,20 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> > >  			 * Optimize the 'normal' case where there aren't any
> > >  			 * cookies and we don't need to sync up.
> > >  			 */
> > > -			if (i == cpu && !need_sync && !p->core_cookie) {
> > > +			if (i == cpu && !need_sync) {
> > > +				if (p->core_cookie) {
> > > +					/*
> > > +					 * This optimization is only valid as
> > > +					 * long as there are no cookies
> > 
> > This is not entirely true, need_sync is a function of core cookies, so I
> > think this needs more clarification, it sounds like we enter this when
> > the core has no cookies, but the task has a core_cookie? The term cookie
> > is quite overloaded when used in the context of core vs task.
> 
> Nah, its the same. So each task gets a cookie to identify the 'group' of
> tasks (possibly just itself) it is allowed to share a core with.
> 
> When we to core task selection, the core gets assigned the cookie of the
> group it will run, same thing.
> 
> > Effectively from what I understand this means that p wants to be
> > coscheduled, but the core itself is not coscheduling anything at the
> > moment, so we need to see if we should do a sync and that sync might
> > cause p to get kicked out and a higher priority class to come in?
> 
> This whole patch is about eliding code-wide task selection when it is
> not required. IOW an optimization.
> 
> When there wasn't a core cookie (IOW, the previous task selection wasn't
> core wide and limited) and the task we just selected for our own CPU
> also didn't have a cookie (IOW it doesn't have to be core-wide) we can
> skip the core wide task selection and schedule just this CPU and call it
> a day.
> 
> The logic was subtly wrong, this patch fixes it. A next patch completely
> rewrites it again to make it far simpler again. Don't spend time trying
> to understand this patch (unless you're _that_ kind of person ;-) but
> instead apply the whole thing and look at the resulting pick_next_task()
> function.

Thanks, I'll look at the git tree and see what the final outcome looks like.

Balbir Singh.