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;
Date:   Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:37:52 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Tim C . Chen" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 09/23] sched/fair: Use task-class performance score
 to pick the busiest group
Message-ID: <Yz6T4OslXxKdAlM/@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220909231205.14009-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
 <20220909231205.14009-10-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
 <YzLYDPU+upHeUG65@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20221005233841.GA29251@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221005233841.GA29251@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:38:41PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 01:01:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 04:11:51PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:

> > > @@ -9049,6 +9111,12 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
> > >  		/* Prefer to move from lowest priority CPU's work */
> > >  		if (sched_asym_prefer(sg->asym_prefer_cpu, sds->busiest->asym_prefer_cpu))
> > >  			return false;
> > > +
> > > +		/* @sg and @sds::busiest have the same priority. */
> > > +		if (sched_asym_class_pick(sds->busiest, sg, &sds->busiest_stat, sgs))
> > > +			return false;
> > > +
> > > +		/* @sg has lower priority than @sds::busiest. */
> > >  		break;
> > >  
> > >  	case group_misfit_task:
> > 
> > So why does only this one instance of asym_prefer() require tie
> > breaking?
> 
> This is the only place in which two sched groups with running tasks and of
> equal priority are compared.
> 
> In all other places sched_asym_prefer() is used to compare the destination
> CPU with others. Since asym_packing is done only when the destination CPU is
> idle, there is no need to break this tie.

That would make for a fine comment, no? Because as presented one is left
wondering, why if asym_prefer() needs tie breaking, only this one site
needs it.

> > And while looking through this, I must ask about the comment that goes
> > with sched_set_itmt_core_prio() vs the sg->asym_prefer_cpu assignment in
> > init_sched_groups_capacity(), what-up ?!
> 
> Are you referring to this comment?
> 
> 	"No need to rebuild sched domain after updating
> 	 the CPU priorities. The sched domains have no
> 	 dependency on CPU priorities"
> 
> If yes, then it looks wrong to me. Sched domains are rebuilt after updating
> priorities.

Right.