Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1412289
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 09/16] sched/fair: Let asymmetric cpu configurations balance at wake-up |
| Date | 2016-06-02 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rFBNg-71V-23@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rBVKx-4Lf-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rBVKz-4Lf-41@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Currently, SD_WAKE_AFFINE always takes priority over wakeup balancing if
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE is set on the sched_domains. For asymmetric
> configurations SD_WAKE_AFFINE is only desirable if the waking task's
> compute demand (utilization) is suitable for the cpu capacities
> available within the SD_WAKE_AFFINE sched_domain. If not, let wakeup
> balancing take over (find_idlest_{group, cpu}()).
>
> The assumption is that SD_WAKE_AFFINE is never set for a sched_domain
> containing cpus with different capacities. This is enforced by a
> previous patch based on the SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY flag.
>
> Ideally, we shouldn't set 'want_affine' in the first place, but we don't
> know if SD_BALANCE_WAKE is enabled on the sched_domain(s) until we start
> traversing them.
I'm a bit confused...
Lets assume a 2+2 big.little thing with shared LLC:
---------- SD2 ----------
-- SD1 -- -- SD1 --
0 1 2 3
SD1: WAKE_AFFINE, BALANCE_WAKE
SD2: ASYM_CAPACITY, BALANCE_WAKE
t0 used to run on cpu1, t0 used to run on cpu2
cpu0 wakes t0:
want_affine = 1
SD1:
WAKE_AFFINE
cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sd_mask) == true
affine_sd = SD1
break;
affine_sd != NULL -> affine-wakeup
cpu0 wakes t1:
want_affine = 1
SD1:
WAKE_AFFINE
cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sd_mask) == false
SD2:
BALANCE_WAKE
sd = SD2
affine_sd == NULL, sd == SD2 -> find_idlest_*()
All without this patch...
So what is this thing doing?
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 09/16] sched/fair: Let asymmetric cpu configurations balance at wake-up Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-02 16:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 09/16] sched/fair: Let asymmetric cpu configurations balance at wake-up Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com> - 2016-06-08 13:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 09/16] sched/fair: Let asymmetric cpu configurations balance at wake-up Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-08 16:40 +0200
csiph-web