Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
From:   Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
        Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>,
        Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr>
Subject: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2023 18:29:46 +0100
Message-Id: <20231030172945.1505532-1-keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

should_we_balance is called for the decision to do load-balancing.
When sched ticks invoke this function, only one CPU should return
true. However, in the current code, two CPUs can return true. The
following situation, where b means busy and i means idle, is an
example, because CPU 0 and CPU 2 return true.

        [0, 1] [2, 3]
         b  b   i  b

This fix checks if there exists an idle CPU with busy sibling(s)
after looking for a CPU on an idle core. If some idle CPUs with busy
siblings are found, just the first one should do load-balancing.

Fixes: b1bfeab9b002 ("sched/fair: Consider the idle state of the whole core for load balance")
Signed-off-by: Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@inria.fr>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 +++++++---
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 2048138ce54b..69d63fae34f4 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -11079,12 +11079,16 @@ static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
 			continue;
 		}
 
-		/* Are we the first idle CPU? */
+		/*
+		 * Are we the first idle core in a MC or higher domain
+		 * or the first idle CPU in a SMT domain?
+		 */
 		return cpu == env->dst_cpu;
 	}
 
-	if (idle_smt == env->dst_cpu)
-		return true;
+	/* Are we the first idle CPU with busy siblings? */
+	if (idle_smt != -1)
+		return idle_smt == env->dst_cpu;
 
 	/* Are we the first CPU of this group ? */
 	return group_balance_cpu(sg) == env->dst_cpu;
-- 
2.34.1