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:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:35:44 +0200
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Odin Ugedal <odin@uged.al>, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/5] sched/fair: Add ancestors of unthrottled
 undecayed cfs_rq
Message-ID: <20210910113544.GB24156@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <20210819175034.4577-1-mkoutny@suse.com>
 <20210819175034.4577-2-mkoutny@suse.com>
 <CAKfTPtDkOcAwQtfHhQ_OZH7UZ0fDuhqoNrGLPFO3ikkWMPuSFw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDkOcAwQtfHhQ_OZH7UZ0fDuhqoNrGLPFO3ikkWMPuSFw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

Hello Vincent.

Thank you for looking into this!

On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:57:37PM +0200, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> > +               /* Nothing to run but something to decay? Complete the branch */
> > +               if (cfs_rq->on_list)
> 
> Could you use !cfs_rq_is decayed(cfs_rq) ?

What needs to be checked here is whether the list was modified by adding
the cfs_rq (and branch needs closing).

It'd appear that the equal condition like in tg_unthrottle_up() would
make do, i.e.
	!cfs_rq_is_decayed(cfs_rq) || cfs_rq->nr_running
but the unthrottle_cfs_rq() can be called under a still throttled
ancestor (i.e. throttle_count not dropping to zero) and in such a case
cfs_rq should not be added to the list yet.

Therefore, mere !cfs_rq_is_decayed(cfs_rq) doesn't seem correct to me.

> > +                       for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> > +                               if (list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(group_cfs_rq(se)))
> > +                                       break;
> > +                       }
> > +               assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq);
> 
> Instead of adding  a loop here you should better jump to unthrottle_throttle ?

Oh, that looks a bit clumsy now (it's an artifact I've left when
reordering the patch in the series to be backport-friendly). 
Jump to unthrottle_throttle seems easier indeed, there would be just the
additional check
	if (rq->curr == rq->idle && rq->cfs.nr_running)
. Besides unnecessary work, it should be harmless.

Is the jump the preferred form?

Michal