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;
From:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     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,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] sched/fair: Consider cpu affinity when allowing NUMA
 imbalance in find_idlest_group
In-Reply-To: <YqNR+y5I/3UeVa/g@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:25:34 +0100
Message-ID: <xhsmho7z07af5.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 10/06/22 16:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:55:37AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>

Yeah, you got a point there.

>> 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.

Right, I meant to make the mask match cpu_online_mask from the get go, but
now that I allocate a few more neurons thinking about it it looks like a
can of worms; we'd have to do that after smp_init() to see which CPUs we
actually onlined, and by then we have already forked around.