Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220407111222.22649-1-kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
 <YqHfdn9O81Ir1+bI@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <xhsmhr13w7pp2.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
 <YqNR+y5I/3UeVa/g@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <YqNR+y5I/3UeVa/g@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:42:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBDqgpjR2tkgQ6hwYnZ2b1azMX0EKQL1cbuUVbK48MnHA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] sched/fair: Consider cpu affinity when allowing NUMA
 imbalance in find_idlest_group
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
        aubrey.li@linux.intel.com, efault@gmx.de, gautham.shenoy@amd.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
        mingo@kernel.org, song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com,
        srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 16:15, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:55:37AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > On 09/06/22 13:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Now, I can (and have) fixed up the conflict, but it did make me look at
> > > this in a little more detail; and the thing I noticed is that your:
> > >
> > >   'p->nr_cpus_allowed != num_online_cpus()'
> > >
> > > test makes no sense. That's basically 'true'. The thing is,
> > > nr_cpus_allowed is initialized to NR_CPUS, and unless someone somewhere
> > > did set_cpus_allowed() on it, it'll still be NR_CPUS.
> > >
> > > Also, CPU hotplug doesn't change nr_cpus_allowed, so num_online_cpus()
> > > is just plain wrong.
> > >
> > > Now, something that might work is:
> > >
> > >   'p->nr_cpus_allowed < num_online_cpus()'
> > >
> > > And even that is no guarantee. You can construct a situation where this
> > > is still false even though you actually have a constrained set.
> > > Consider a machine with 8 CPUs. Then set the mask to: 0x55, which has 4
> > > CPUs set. Then offline the last 4 so that the online mask becomes 0x0f.
> > >
> > > Then the effective mask is 0x05, and the number we're looking for above
> > > is 2, but the suggested test would still be false, because
> > > nr_cpus_allowed would be 4, as would num_online_cpus().
> > >
> >
> > IIUC we want to pay special attention when the task isn't allowed to run on
> > all online CPUs, wouldn't the below do that?
> >
> >   !cpumask_subset(cpu_online_mask, p->cpus_ptr)
>
> At that point we might just as well do the whole cpumask_and() thing,
> no? There's not much cost difference between these two operations.

The test was there to not do the computation with cpumask_and() if the
task's affinity has not been modified so maybe it would be enough to
test (p->nr_cpus_allowed != NR_CPUS) to check if the task's affinity
has been modified and we have we do the cpumask_and()  and
cpumask_weight()

>
> > The task affinity can be a superset of the online mask, obvious case is
> > init_task's CPU_MASK_ALL, and the above test is still false if both masks
> > are equal.
> >
> > (Additionnaly we could add a step in sched_init() to "properly" initialize
> > the init_task mask and remove the NR_CPUS faff).
>
> I'm confused, NR_CPUS is the right value for CPU_MASK_ALL.