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: <cover.1683156492.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> <b20517e3986bfdde8a605afa19d144ec411c7a42.1683156492.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <b20517e3986bfdde8a605afa19d144ec411c7a42.1683156492.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 9 May 2023 15:36:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBU1Jehye1bY5Ve0hC9_oGKL=SoVRar3Kbs5rhGcEEnAw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] sched/fair: Skip prefer sibling move between SMT
 group and non-SMT group
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        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>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>,
        Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 18:11, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> From: Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
>
> Do not try to move tasks between non SMT sched group and SMT sched
> group for "prefer sibling" load balance.
> Let asym_active_balance_busiest() handle that case properly.
> Otherwise we could get task bouncing back and forth between
> the SMT sched group and non SMT sched group.
>
> Reviewed-by: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 8a325db34b02..58ef7d529731 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -10411,8 +10411,12 @@ static struct sched_group *find_busiest_group(struct lb_env *env)
>         /*
>          * Try to move all excess tasks to a sibling domain of the busiest
>          * group's child domain.
> +        *
> +        * Do not try to move between non smt sched group and smt sched
> +        * group. Let asym active balance properly handle that case.
>          */
>         if (sds.prefer_sibling && local->group_type == group_has_spare &&
> +           !asymmetric_groups(sds.busiest, sds.local) &&

Can't you delete SD_PREFER_SIBLING flags when building topology like
SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY does ?

Generally speaking  SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY and SD_ASYM_PACKING are doing
quite similar thing, it would be good to get one common solution
instead 2 parallel paths

>             busiest->sum_nr_running > local->sum_nr_running + 1)
>                 goto force_balance;
>
> --
> 2.32.0
>