Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-180651-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240508172621.30069-1-ppbuk5246@gmail.com> <20240509092931.35209-2-ppbuk5246@gmail.com>
 <ZkU8lm2tjm_r9FpZ@pavilion.home>
In-Reply-To: <ZkU8lm2tjm_r9FpZ@pavilion.home>
From: Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 06:29:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CAM7-yPToeHY_8vjE7KSa+jmsfmCknUAL2WP8m-S3EpD52-wGCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] time/tick-sched: idle load balancing when nohz_full
 cpu becomes idle.
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>, 
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, anna-maria@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, 
	tglx@linutronix.de, Markus.Elfring@web.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

HI. Frederic!

Thanks for your reply.

> 1) Is Idle load balancing actually relevant for nohz_full? HK_TYPE_MISC already
>    prevent those CPUs from becoming idle load balancer. They can still be
>    targets for load balancing but nohz_full CPUs are supposed to run only one
>    task.

I'm not sure nohz_full cpu is really relevant with Idle load balancing.
However, I couldn't find any reason it shouldn't participate Idle load
balancing.
And about HK_TYPE_MISC, this is half true when it sets with
"nohz_full=" options,
if nohz_full cpu is set via "isolcpus=nohz," it's still in HK_TYPE_MISC mask
so find_ilb() doesn't prevent entering idle load balance.

> 2) This is related to previous point: HK_TYPE_SCHED is never activated. It would
>    prevent the CPU from even beeing part of idle load balancing. Should we
>    remove it or plug it?

IMHO,  If we want to prevent nohz_full cpu entering, I should set with
HK_TYPE_TICK | HK_TYPE_SCHED together.
Because, find_new_ilb()'s comment say
" HK_TYPE_MISC CPUs are used for this task, because HK_TYPE_SCHED is
not set anywhere yet."
or integrate with HK_TYPE_TICK....? removing HK_TYPE_SCHED in the hk list...

It depends on ilb relevant for nohz_full...
If it is, Idle load balance could be controlled with HK_TYPE_SCHED.
If it doesn't ,IMHO, It seems better to remove HK_TYPE_SCHED and check
with HK_TYPE_SCHED.

> 4) Why is nohz_balance_exit_idle() called from the tick and not from the idle
>    exit path? Is it to avoid overhead?

> I'm adding some scheduler people in Cc who might help answer some of those
> questions.
..

Thanks :)