Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Tue, 31 May 2022 14:55:32 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc:     Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Queue task on wakelist in the same llc if the
 wakee cpu is idle
Message-ID: <20220531135532.GA3332@suse.de>
References: <20220527090544.527411-1-dtcccc@linux.alibaba.com>
 <xhsmhleuj7zve.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
 <1d0eb8f4-e474-86a9-751a-7c2e1788df85@linux.alibaba.com>
 <xhsmhilpl9azq.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <xhsmhilpl9azq.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:50:49PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> With all that in mind, I'm curious whether your patch is functionaly close
> >> to the below.
> >> 
> >> ---
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> >> index 66c4e5922fe1..ffd43264722a 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> >> @@ -3836,7 +3836,7 @@ static inline bool ttwu_queue_cond(int cpu, int wake_flags)
> >>   	 * the soon-to-be-idle CPU as the current CPU is likely busy.
> >>   	 * nr_running is checked to avoid unnecessary task stacking.
> >>   	 */
> >> -	if ((wake_flags & WF_ON_CPU) && cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running <= 1)
> >> +	if (cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running <= 1)
> >>   		return true;
> >>   
> >>   	return false;
> >
> > It's a little different. This may bring extra IPIs when nr_running == 1 
> > and the current task on wakee cpu is not the target wakeup task (i.e., 
> > rq->curr == another_task && rq->curr != p). Then this another_task may 
> > be disturbed by IPI which is not expected. So IMO the promise by 
> > WF_ON_CPU is necessary.
> 
> You're right, actually taking a second look at that WF_ON_CPU path,
> shouldn't the existing condition be:
> 
> 	if ((wake_flags & WF_ON_CPU) && !cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running)
> 
> ? Per the p->on_rq and p->on_cpu ordering, if we have WF_ON_CPU here then
> we must have !p->on_rq, so the deactivate has happened, thus the task
> being alone on the rq implies nr_running==0.
> 
> @Mel, do you remember why you went for <=1 here? I couldn't find any clues
> on the original posting.
> 

I don't recall exactly why I went with <= 1 there but I may not have
considered the memory ordering of on_rq and nr_running and the comment
above it is literally what I was thinking at the time. I think you're
right and that check can be !cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs