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: <20210321150358.71ef52b1@imladris.surriel.com> <20210322110306.GE3697@techsingularity.net>
 <20210326151932.2c187840@imladris.surriel.com> <CAKfTPtBvy3Wv=-d5tjrirO3ukBgqV5vM709+_ee+H8LWJsnoLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e21aa6ea7de3eae32b29559926d4f0ba5fea130.camel@surriel.com>
In-Reply-To: <1e21aa6ea7de3eae32b29559926d4f0ba5fea130.camel@surriel.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:31:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtC2Cnr=SoD9t+dLh01ux_bc8PAcHTXxxiBqbqykLphBNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: bring back select_idle_smt, but differently
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 17:26, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2021-04-06 at 17:10 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 20:19, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > -static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct
> > > sched_domain *sd, int target)
> > > +static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct
> > > sched_domain *sd, int prev, int target)
> > >  {
> > >         struct cpumask *cpus =
> > > this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(select_idle_mask);
> > >         int i, cpu, idle_cpu = -1, nr = INT_MAX;
> > > @@ -6136,23 +6163,32 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct
> > > task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
> > >
> > >         cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
> > >
> > > -       if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP) && !smt) {
> > > -               u64 avg_cost, avg_idle, span_avg;
> > > +       if (!smt) {
> > > +               if (cpus_share_cache(prev, target)) {
> >
> > Have you checked the impact on no smt system ? would worth a static
> > branch.
> >
> > Also, this doesn't need to be in select_idle_cpu() which aims to loop
> > the sched_domain becaus you only compare  target and prev. So you can
> > move this call to select_idle_smt() in select_idle_sibling()
>
> After Mel's rewrite, there no longer are calls to
> select_idle_core() or select_idle_smt() in select_idle_sibling().

select_idle_smt() had even disappeared that why it was not in
select_idle_sibling

>
> Everything got folded into one single loop in select_idle_cpu()

but this is done completely out of the loop so we don't need to
complify the function with unrelated stuff

>
> I would be happy to pull the static branch out of select_idle_smt()
> and place it into this if condition, though. You are right that
> would save some overhead on non-smt systems.
>
> Peter, would you prefer a follow-up patch for that or a version 4
> of the patch?
>
> --
> All Rights Reversed.