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:   Tue, 18 May 2021 18:10:24 +0100
From:   Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@arm.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        corbet@lwn.net, rdunlap@infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] sched/topology: Rework CPU capacity asymmetry
 detection
Message-ID: <20210518171024.GF3993@e120325.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1621239831-5870-1-git-send-email-beata.michalska@arm.com>
 <1621239831-5870-3-git-send-email-beata.michalska@arm.com>
 <87mtst1s8m.mognet@arm.com>
 <20210517131816.GA13965@e120325.cambridge.arm.com>
 <87k0nx1jtu.mognet@arm.com>
 <20210518144033.GB3993@e120325.cambridge.arm.com>
 <87bl9811il.mognet@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87bl9811il.mognet@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:53:54PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 18/05/21 15:40, Beata Michalska wrote:
> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 04:06:05PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> On 17/05/21 14:18, Beata Michalska wrote:
> >> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 01:04:25PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> >> On 17/05/21 09:23, Beata Michalska wrote:
> >> >> > +static void asym_cpu_capacity_scan(const struct cpumask *cpu_map)
> >> >> > +{
> >> >> > +	struct asym_cap_data *entry, *next;
> >> >> > +	int cpu;
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -		for_each_sd_topology(tl) {
> >> >> > -			if (tl_id < asym_level)
> >> >> > -				goto next_level;
> >> >> > +	if (!list_empty(&asym_cap_list))
> >> >> > +		list_for_each_entry(entry, &asym_cap_list, link)
> >> >> > +			cpumask_clear(entry->cpu_mask);
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The topology isn't going to change between domain rebuilds, so why
> >> >> recompute the masks? The sched_domain spans are already masked by cpu_map,
> >> >> so no need to do this masking twice. I'm thinking this scan should be done
> >> >> once against the cpu_possible_mask - kinda like sched_init_numa() done once
> >> >> against the possible nodes.
> >> >>
> >> > This is currently done, as what you have mentioned earlier, the tl->mask
> >> > may contain CPUs that are not 'available'. So it makes sure that the masks
> >> > kept on  the list are representing only those CPUs that are online.
> >> > And it is also needed case all CPUs of given capacity go offline - not to to
> >> > lose the full asymmetry that might change because of that ( empty masks are
> >> > being removed from the list).
> >> >
> >> > I could change that and use the CPU mask that represents the online CPUs as
> >> > a checkpoint but then it also means additional tracking which items on the
> >> > list are actually available at a given point of time.
> >> > So if the CPUs masks on the list are to be set once (as you are suggesting)
> >> > than it needs additional logic to count the number of available capacities
> >> > to decide whether there is a full asymmetry or not.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That should be doable by counting non-empty intersections between each
> >> entry->cpumask and the cpu_online_mask in _classify().
> >>
> >> That said I'm afraid cpufreq module loading forces us to dynamically update
> >> those masks, as you've done. The first domain build could see asymmetry
> >> without cpufreq loaded, and a later one with cpufreq loaded would need an
> >> update. Conversely, as much of a fringe case as it is, we'd have to cope
> >> with the cpufreq module being unloaded later on...
> >>
> >> :(
> > So it got me thinking that maybe we could actually make it more
> > 'update-on-demand' and use the cpufreq policy notifier to trigger the update.
> > I could try to draft smth generic enough to make it ... relatively easy to adapt
> > to different archs case needed.
> > Any thoughts ?
> >
> 
> The cpufreq policy notifier rebuild is currently an arch_topology.c
> specificity, and perhaps we can consider this as our standing policy: if an
> arch needs a topology rebuild upon X event (which isn't hotplug), it is
> responsible for triggering it itself.
> 
> There's those sched_energy_update / arch_update_cpu_topology() bools that
> are used to tweak the rebuild behaviour, perhaps you could gate the
> capacity maps rebuild behind arch_update_cpu_topology()?
> 
> That way you could build those maps based on a cpu_possible_mask iterator,
> and only rebuild them when the arch requests it (arch_topology already does
> that with the cpufreq notifier). How does it sound?
>
That sounds reasonable/doable. Will see how that plays out.
Thanks.

---
BR
B.
> > ---
> > BR
> > B.