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, 4 Dec 2020 14:31:15 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Ziljstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Linux-ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] sched/fair: Clear the target CPU from the cpumask
 of CPUs searched
Message-ID: <20201204143115.GB3371@techsingularity.net>
References: <20201203141124.7391-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
 <20201203141124.7391-7-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
 <CAKfTPtDm880Rs7D1xUCQd_X9okqzhgrmCJVhwg90Rt3krq9ytg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201203175204.GY3371@techsingularity.net>
 <CAKfTPtBGsXb0RqE_qs2miZGi_uax4VY1_8y1NGhQ17Q8mBx8dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201204113030.GZ3371@techsingularity.net>
 <CAKfTPtDRqwUoX51rU0Xd3H9Dwqf8bLAFBxhoeMF1brKYmAZDJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKfTPtBABBY1QSfFtbhBQ7+a8HOp2YfTyJaMVo07T5GU7sp_MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3d8a6d19-afac-dc93-127d-da6505402cdf@linux.intel.com>
 <CAKfTPtAp+SyjmAsxTpSo5owQq0AeDpBWdo5ds0fVZvDr2OK_iw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtAp+SyjmAsxTpSo5owQq0AeDpBWdo5ds0fVZvDr2OK_iw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:47:48PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > IIUC, select_idle_core and select_idle_cpu share the same cpumask(select_idle_mask)?
> > If the target's sibling is removed from select_idle_mask from select_idle_core(),
> > select_idle_cpu() will lose the chance to pick it up?
> 
> This is only relevant for patch 10 which is not to be included IIUC
> what mel said in cover letter : "Patches 9 and 10 are stupid in the
> context of this series."
> 

Patch 10 was stupid in the context of the prototype because
select_idle_core always returned a CPU. A variation ended up being
reintroduced at the end of the Series Yet To Be Posted so that SMT siblings
are cleared during select_idle_core() but select_idle_cpu() still has a
mask with unvisited CPUs to consider if no idle cores are found.

As far as I know, this would still be compatible with Aubrey's idle
cpu mask as long as it's visited and cleared between select_idle_core
and select_idle_cpu. It relaxes the contraints on Aubrey to some extent
because the idle cpu mask would be a hint so if the information is out
of date, an idle cpu may still be found the normal way.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs