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:     Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>,
        Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Cc:     "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        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>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Tim C . Chen" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] x86/sched: Remove SD_ASYM_PACKING from the "SMT"
 domain
In-Reply-To: <20221214165900.GA972@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
References: <20221122203532.15013-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
 <20221122203532.15013-6-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
 <Y5IKuJTjE6Pjrw9I@arm.com>
 <20221214165900.GA972@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 16:48:14 +0000
Message-ID: <xhsmhwn6s62b5.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 14/12/22 08:59, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 04:03:04PM +0000, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
>> Based on:
>>
>> kernel/sched/topology.c:
>> sd = highest_flag_domain(cpu, SD_ASYM_PACKING);
>> rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(sd_asym_packing, cpu), sd);
>>
>> and described at:
>>
>> include/linux/sched/sd_flags.h:
>> /*
>>  * Place busy tasks earlier in the domain
>>  *
>>  * SHARED_CHILD: Usually set on the SMT level. Technically could be set further
>>  *               up, but currently assumed to be set from the base domain
>>  *               upwards (see update_top_cache_domain()).
>>  * NEEDS_GROUPS: Load balancing flag.
>>  */
>> SD_FLAG(SD_ASYM_PACKING, SDF_SHARED_CHILD | SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS)
>>
>> doesn't your change result in sd_asym_packing being NULL?
>
> Yes. This is a good catch. Thanks!
>

Nice to see those being useful :-) FYI if you run your kernel with
CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y and sched_debug on the cmdline, you should get a
warning at boot time from the topology debug code checking assertions
against those flags.

>>
>> The SD_ASYM_PACKING flag requires all children of a domain to have it set
>> as well. So having SMT not setting the flag, while CLUSTER and MC having
>> set the flag would result in a broken topology, right?
>
> I'd say that highest_flag_domain(..., flag) requires all children to have
> `flag`, but clearly the comment you quote allows for SD_ASYM_PACKING to
> be located in upper domains.
>
> Perhaps this can be fixed with a variant of highest_flag_domain() that do
> not require all children to have the flag?
>

So I gave that flag SDF_SHARED_CHILD because its cached SD pointer was set
up using highest_flag_domain(). Looking for the highest level where it is
set matches how it is used in nohz_balancer_kick(), so you might want a new
helper.

With that said, so far all but one flag (SD_PREFER_SIBLING, and that's
because of big.LITTLE woes) follow the SDF_SHARED_{CHILD, PARENT} pattern,
if SD_ASYM_PACKING no longer does then we need to think whether we're
trying to make it do funky things. I need to look at the rest of your
series to get an idea, that unfortunately won't be today but it's now in my
todolist.

> Thanks and BR,
> Ricardo