Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-73283-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:59:13 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] sched/fair: Check a task has a fitting cpu when
 updating misfit
Message-ID: <20240220155913.n7uxb3e56kuhcxs2@airbuntu>
References: <20240205021123.2225933-1-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <20240205021123.2225933-3-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <CAKfTPtAsij+_=n9JCxHw==j3-wC9rYZHEJyVmyBJsx_-Udhzgw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtAsij+_=n9JCxHw==j3-wC9rYZHEJyVmyBJsx_-Udhzgw@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/12/24 18:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:

> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index b803030c3a03..8b8035f5c8f6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -5092,24 +5092,36 @@ static inline int task_fits_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> >
> >  static inline void update_misfit_status(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
> >  {
> > +       unsigned long cpu_cap;
> > +       int cpu = cpu_of(rq);
> > +
> >         if (!sched_asym_cpucap_active())
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       if (!p || p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1) {
> > -               rq->misfit_task_load = 0;
> > -               return;
> > -       }
> > +       if (!p || p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
> > +               goto out;
> >
> > -       if (task_fits_cpu(p, cpu_of(rq))) {
> > -               rq->misfit_task_load = 0;
> > -               return;
> > -       }
> > +       cpu_cap = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu);
> > +
> > +       /* If we can't fit the biggest CPU, that's the best we can ever get. */
> > +       if (cpu_cap == rq->rd->max_cpu_capacity)
> 
> Isn't the condition above also covered by the condition below and
> becomes now useless ?

Yes, you're right. If it is allowed to run on rd->max_cpu_capacity then the
below check will cover it. If it is not allowed, then it won't be there on the
first place.

I'll drop it.

> > -/*
> > - * Check whether a rq has a misfit task and if it looks like we can actually
> > - * help that task: we can migrate the task to a CPU of higher capacity, or
> > - * the task's current CPU is heavily pressured.
> > - */
> > -static inline int check_misfit_status(struct rq *rq, struct sched_domain *sd)
> > +/* Check if the rq has a misfit task */
> > +static inline bool check_misfit_status(struct rq *rq, struct sched_domain *sd)
> >  {
> > -       return rq->misfit_task_load &&
> > -               (arch_scale_cpu_capacity(rq->cpu) < rq->rd->max_cpu_capacity ||
> > -                check_cpu_capacity(rq, sd));
> > +       if (!rq->misfit_task_load)
> > +               return false;
> 
> I think that only the above is enough ...
> 
> > +
> > +       /* Can we migrate to a CPU with higher capacity? */
> > +       if (arch_scale_cpu_capacity(rq->cpu) < rq->rd->max_cpu_capacity)
> 
> because rq->misfit_task_load is set to 0 if
> arch_scale_cpu_capacity(rq->cpu) == rq->rd->max_cpu_capacity
> 
> That would also mean that we don't need to keep and set
> rd->max_cpu_capacity anymore as we remove the 2 uses of it

+1

I'll drop max_cpu_capacity as a new patch on top

> 
> > +               return true;
> > +
> > +       /* Is the task's CPU being heavily pressured? */
> > +       return check_cpu_capacity(rq, sd);
> 
> and this one has already been tested in nohz_balancer_kick() before
> calling check_misfit_status()

Yes, removed.

I realized that I wanted to also add a new patch to not double balance_interval
for misfit failures. I think you indicated that seems the right thing to do?


Thanks

--
Qais Yousef