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:   Wed, 26 May 2021 14:15:31 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
Cc:     vincent.guittot@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, valentin.schneider@arm.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        bristot@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        guodong.xu@linaro.org, yangyicong@huawei.com,
        tangchengchang@huawei.com, linuxarm@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: fair: don't depend on wake_wide if waker and
 wakee are already in same LLC
Message-ID: <YK474+4xpYlAha+2@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210526091057.1800-1-song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210526091057.1800-1-song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
Precedence: bulk


$subject is weird; sched/fair: is the right tag, and then start with a
capital letter.

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 09:10:57PM +1200, Barry Song wrote:
> when waker and wakee are already in the same LLC, it is pointless to worry
> about the competition caused by pulling wakee to waker's LLC domain.

But there's more than LLC.

> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 3248e24a90b0..cfb1bd47acc3 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6795,7 +6795,15 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int wake_flags)
>  			new_cpu = prev_cpu;
>  		}
>  
> -		want_affine = !wake_wide(p) && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr);
> +		/*
> +		 * we use wake_wide to make smarter pull and avoid cruel
> +		 * competition because of jam-packed tasks in waker's LLC
> +		 * domain. But if waker and wakee have been already in
> +		 * same LLC domain, it seems it is pointless to depend
> +		 * on wake_wide
> +		 */
> +		want_affine = (cpus_share_cache(cpu, prev_cpu) || !wake_wide(p)) &&
> +				cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr);
>  	}

And no supportive numbers...