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: <20210819175034.4577-1-mkoutny@suse.com> <20210819175034.4577-2-mkoutny@suse.com>
 <CAKfTPtDkOcAwQtfHhQ_OZH7UZ0fDuhqoNrGLPFO3ikkWMPuSFw@mail.gmail.com> <20210910113544.GB24156@blackbody.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20210910113544.GB24156@blackbody.suse.cz>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:17:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtA+q0PEJtzkZAe=6bMFjD4JrA3k34mGMpDfmMUr5nPfiA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/5] sched/fair: Add ancestors of unthrottled
 undecayed cfs_rq
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 13:35, Michal Koutn=C3=BD <mkoutny@suse.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Vincent.
>
> Thank you for looking into this!
>
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:57:37PM +0200, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guitto=
t@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > +               /* Nothing to run but something to decay? Complete th=
e 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.

fair enough

>
> > > +                       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_thr=
ottle ?
>
> 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 =3D=3D rq->idle && rq->cfs.nr_running)
> . Besides unnecessary work, it should be harmless.

yes the condition should be always false

>
> Is the jump the preferred form?

yes compared to adding the exact same loop

>
> Michal