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:   Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:32:07 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc:     "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        valentin.schneider@arm.com, qais.yousef@arm.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v7] sched/fair: select idle cpu from idle cpumask for
 task wakeup
Message-ID: <20201214093207.GY3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20201209062404.175565-1-aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
 <20201209143510.GO3371@techsingularity.net>
 <3802e27a-56ed-9495-21b9-7c4277065155@linux.intel.com>
 <20201210113441.GS3371@techsingularity.net>
 <31308700-aa28-b1f7-398e-ee76772b6b87@linux.intel.com>
 <20201210125833.GT3371@techsingularity.net>
 <20201211174442.GU3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20201211204337.GX3371@techsingularity.net>
 <20201211221905.GV3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20201211225002.GY3371@techsingularity.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201211225002.GY3371@techsingularity.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 10:50:02PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:

> > > The third potential downside is that the SMT sibling is not guaranteed to
> > > be checked due to SIS_PROP throttling but in the old code, that would have
> > > been checked by select_idle_smt(). That might result in premature stacking
> > > of runnable tasks on the same CPU. Similarly, as __select_idle_core may
> > > find multiple idle candidates, it will not pick the targets SMT sibling
> > > if it is idle like select_idle_smt would have.
> > > 
> > > That said, I am skeptical that select_idle_smt() matters all that often.
> > 
> > This, I didn't really believe in it either.
> > 
> 
> Good because I think any benefit from select_idle_smt is so marginal
> that it should be ignored if the full scan is simpler overall.

Perhaps we should start out with a simple patch removing that pass..
That should show, what, if anything, the effect of it is.