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, 1 Mar 2021 16:44:42 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Cc:     Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
        Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prefer idle CPU to cache affinity
Message-ID: <YD0L6sba9RfXX+tM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210226164029.122432-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <ab046b9d5bcd29b2eb759cd999e2f578a683c673.camel@surriel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2JpPWwCpCiHiKfCh"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ab046b9d5bcd29b2eb759cd999e2f578a683c673.camel@surriel.com>
Precedence: bulk


--2JpPWwCpCiHiKfCh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 02:56:07PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 22:10 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:

> > +	if (sched_feat(WA_WAKER) && tnr_busy < tllc_size)
> > +		return this_cpu;
>=20
> I wonder if we need to use a slightly lower threshold on
> very large LLCs, both to account for the fact that the
> select_idle_cpu code may not find the single idle CPU
> among a dozen busy ones, or because on a system with
> hyperthreading we may often be better off picking another
> LLC for HT contention issues?
>=20
> Maybe we could use "tnr_busy * 4 <
> tllc_size * 3" or
> something like that?

How about:

	tnr_busy < tllc_size / topology_max_smt_threads()

?

--2JpPWwCpCiHiKfCh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=4Aam
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2JpPWwCpCiHiKfCh--