Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:206:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp5461465pxj; Wed, 26 May 2021 11:02:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqT6jHG1C3VqUGOA8TVwf8gKh6AGKOVM13LL8sWso9Z+eF6m1lyXNDFyvHOkhch02jLbwM X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9c9a:: with SMTP id p26mr24993757iop.94.1622052150994; Wed, 26 May 2021 11:02:30 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1622052150; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=qRVCyydrwfFxjMlTy0dOwLQLdf6NtkG/sBrSJ+yTdq0U6WfS01Qj1d/Danyp7W8B1o 3DR3TjVQ70W1ncQBIsbmBw1SQZzneiAvMGNJ9ozs0OHdXqbmQJvyYQzPXGr2yTEcNx5W nPyRNa/2KXFEJyKscWaFln8T0pla8nYuT4zlNj0N5OGZUvsS8ZNyHQ7gVigLf1VRNeom mNxfevTjCYCbAfT1K6B7CqDBdUPKMRL0/BQuC6gJED6ZlmZcBEZBe6W/GmPZqnx+aHhB hENQ049l9/80JSbdbmygwabyku3TawsX4Dw+63/a0RZJtfA2Sbp9lDzCkK2eVWu3yo0e WVVw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=88dXLHmw6QO++azv0hbNrQXPWUb1JHq10BrLGbqb2cI=; b=vUOFB099U52nTOVHJ6MdjPRDfk4ZzqdsbllKG2RysBSlcFu717ezLDLJ0KEkte6Mot +6zD1NI2IxMnKOPdVKfktuXPYr5HkA+0BMpcZVlthxvGOIHGwtZ6Eoz+Jr5mvS4AIQY/ S6SRFJnP5DLSC6dJgZCKRzc/1IeVlxuZauTdz30mMZ+aSaBgHqz87RCqufTyq6mzSzWe h65asP+nqvAcvBWwin+B2oqqYxnr6P2J1Nf0U9maV3abjn1v8aMsHPBdm28xbmwa+S3B sGzHA7szXvwyKSZ387qfCMiW88ymgkEOF7jYigyMcPSvu5e6wHNOcm3+zgK3/JROIkq1 lNfg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h6si27906435iow.71.2021.05.26.11.02.16; Wed, 26 May 2021 11:02:30 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234808AbhEZMzX (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 26 May 2021 08:55:23 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:44228 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234950AbhEZMxK (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2021 08:53:10 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52821516; Wed, 26 May 2021 05:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e120325.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 880FD3F73D; Wed, 26 May 2021 05:51:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 13:51:34 +0100 From: Beata Michalska To: Dietmar Eggemann Cc: Valentin Schneider , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, corbet@lwn.net, rdunlap@infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] sched/topology: Rework CPU capacity asymmetry detection Message-ID: <20210526125133.GB13262@e120325.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20210524101617.8965-1-beata.michalska@arm.com> <20210524101617.8965-3-beata.michalska@arm.com> <87fsyc6mfz.mognet@arm.com> <20210524225508.GA14880@e120325.cambridge.arm.com> <87a6oj6sxo.mognet@arm.com> <20210525102945.GA24210@e120325.cambridge.arm.com> <98ad8837-b9b8-ff50-5a91-8d5951ee757c@arm.com> <20210526121546.GA13262@e120325.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210526121546.GA13262@e120325.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 01:15:46PM +0100, Beata Michalska wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 11:52:25AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > > On 25/05/2021 12:29, Beata Michalska wrote: > > > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:53:07AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > >> On 24/05/21 23:55, Beata Michalska wrote: > > >>> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 07:01:04PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > >>>> On 24/05/21 11:16, Beata Michalska wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > >>>>> +static inline int > > >>>>> +asym_cpu_capacity_classify(struct sched_domain *sd, > > >>>>> + const struct cpumask *cpu_map) > > >>>>> +{ > > >>>>> + int sd_asym_flags = SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY | SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL; > > >>>>> + struct asym_cap_data *entry; > > >>>>> + int asym_cap_count = 0; > > >>>>> + > > >>>>> + if (list_is_singular(&asym_cap_list)) > > >>>>> + goto leave; > > >>>>> + > > >>>>> + list_for_each_entry(entry, &asym_cap_list, link) { > > >>>>> + if (cpumask_intersects(sched_domain_span(sd), entry->cpu_mask)) { > > >>>>> + ++asym_cap_count; > > >>>>> + } else { > > >>>>> + /* > > >>>>> + * CPUs with given capacity might be offline > > >>>>> + * so make sure this is not the case > > >>>>> + */ > > >>>>> + if (cpumask_intersects(entry->cpu_mask, cpu_map)) { > > >>>>> + sd_asym_flags &= ~SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL; > > >>>>> + if (asym_cap_count > 1) > > >>>>> + break; > > >>>>> + } > > >>>> > > >>>> Readability nit: That could be made into an else if (). > > >>> It could but then this way the -comment- gets more exposed. > > >>> But that might be my personal perception so I can change that. > > >> > > >> As always those are quite subjective! Methink something like this would > > >> still draw attention to the offline case: > > >> > > >> /* > > >> * Count how many unique capacities this domain covers. If a > > >> * capacity isn't covered, we need to check if any CPU with > > >> * that capacity is actually online, otherwise it can be > > >> * ignored. > > >> */ > > >> if (cpumask_intersects(sched_domain_span(sd), entry->cpu_mask)) { > > >> ++asym_cap_count; > > >> } else if (cpumask_intersects(entry->cpu_mask, cpu_map)) { > > >> sd_asym_flags &= ~SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL; > > >> if (asym_cap_count > 1) > > >> break; > > >> } > > > Noted. > > > Will wait for some more comments before sending out 'polished' version. > > > > For me asym_cpu_capacity_classify() is pretty hard to digest ;-) But I > > wasn't able to break it. It also performs correctly on (non-existing SMT) > > layer (with sd span eq. single CPU). > > > > Something like this (separating asym_cap_list iteration and flags > > construction would be easier for me. But like already said here, > > it's subjective. > > I left the two optimizations (list_is_singular(), break on asym_cap_count > > > 1) out for now. asym_cap_list shouldn't have > 4 entries (;-)). > > > > static inline int > > asym_cpu_capacity_classify(struct sched_domain *sd, > > const struct cpumask *cpu_map) > > { > > int sd_span_match = 0, cpu_map_match = 0, flags = 0; > > struct asym_cap_data *entry; > > > > list_for_each_entry(entry, &asym_cap_list, link) { > > if (cpumask_intersects(sched_domain_span(sd), entry->cpu_mask)) > > ++sd_span_match; > > else if (cpumask_intersects(cpu_map, entry->cpu_mask)) > > ++cpu_map_match; > > } > > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!sd_span_match); > > > > if (sd_span_match > 1) { > > flags |= SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY; > > if (!cpu_map_match) > > flags |= SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL; > > } > > > > return flags; > > } > So I planned to drop the list_is_singular check as it is needless really. > Otherwise, I am not really convinced by the suggestion. I could add comments > around current version to make it more ..... 'digestible' but I'd rather > stay with it as it seems more compact to me (subjective). > > > > > BTW, how would this mechanism behave on a system with SMT and asymmetric CPU > > capacity? Something EAS wouldn't allow but I guess asym_cap_list will be > > constructed and the SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_XXX flags will be set? > Yes, the list would get created and flags set. I do not think there is > a difference with current approach (?). So EAS would be disabled (it only cares > about SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL flag) but the misift might still kick in. > That depends on the arch_scale_cpu_capacity. I would imagine it would return SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE for those, which means no asymmetry will be detected ? > --- > BR > B.