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: <20201207091516.24683-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
In-Reply-To: <20201207091516.24683-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 7 Dec 2020 16:04:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtC9At0Oej+u6-mtBdV6_vhFiNJGPQ-BFQc7RpUtDDixVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Reduce worst-case scanning of runqueues in select_idle_sibling
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
        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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 10:15, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
>
> This is a minimal series to reduce the amount of runqueue scanning in
> select_idle_sibling in the worst case.
>
> Patch 1 removes SIS_AVG_CPU because it's unused.
>
> Patch 2 improves the hit rate of p->recent_used_cpu to reduce the amount
>         of scanning. It should be relatively uncontroversial
>
> Patch 3-4 scans the runqueues in a single pass for select_idle_core()
>         and select_idle_cpu() so runqueues are not scanned twice. It's
>         a tradeoff because it benefits deep scans but introduces overhead
>         for shallow scans.
>
> Even if patch 3-4 is rejected to allow more time for Aubrey's idle cpu mask

patch 3 looks fine and doesn't collide with Aubrey's work. But I don't
like patch 4  which manipulates different cpumask including
load_balance_mask out of LB and I prefer to wait for v6 of Aubrey's
patchset which should fix the problem of possibly  scanning twice busy
cpus in select_idle_core and select_idle_cpu


> approach to stand on its own, patches 1-2 should be fine. The main decision
> with patch 4 is whether select_idle_core() should do a full scan when searching
> for an idle core, whether it should be throttled in some other fashion or
> whether it should be just left alone.
>
> --
> 2.26.2
>