LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Valentin Schneider <>
To: Vincent Donnefort <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix per-CPU kthread and wakee stacking for asym CPU capacity
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 18:04:30 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211124175304.GA3221810@ubiquitous>

On 24/11/21 17:58, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 05:11:32PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 24/11/21 14:14, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
>> > A shortcut has been introduced in select_idle_sibling() to return prev_cpu
>> > if the wakee is woken up by a per-CPU kthread. This is an issue for
>> > asymmetric CPU capacity systems where the wakee might not fit prev_cpu
>> > anymore. Evaluate asym_fits_capacity() for prev_cpu before using that
>> > shortcut.
>> >
>> > Fixes: 52262ee567ad ("sched/fair: Allow a per-CPU kthread waking a task to stack on the same CPU, to fix XFS performance regression")
>> Shouldn't that rather be
>>   b4c9c9f15649 ("sched/fair: Prefer prev cpu in asymmetric wakeup path")
> Yes definitely, my bad!
>> ? This is an ulterior commit to the one you point to, and before then
>> asymmetric CPU systems wouldn't use any of the sis() heuristics.
>> I reportedly reviewed said commit back then, and don't recall anything
>> specific about that conditional... The cover-letter for v2 states:
>>   """
>>   don't check capacity for the per-cpu kthread UC because the assumption is
>>   that the wakee queued work for the per-cpu kthread that is now complete and
>>   the task was already on this cpu.
>>   """
>> So the assumption here is that current is gonna sleep right after waking up
>> p, so current's utilization doesn't matter, and p was already on prev, so
>> it should fit there...
> I don't think the assumption that "p was already on prev should fit" is
> correct if we take into account uclamp min. That value can change from one
> activation to the other and make that task artificially too big for prev_cpu...

Humph, good point, hadn't thought of that.

>> I'm thinking things should actually be OK with your other patch that
>> excludes 'current == swapper' from this condition.
> ...But indeed if we add [1] to the equation, this patch here would only
> protect against that specific corner case.
> (And probably also against the fact that this same task could have a value
> that doesn't fit this CPU anymore but didn't trigger misfit during its previous
> activation?)

That would imply crossing the misfit threshold right at the dequeue signal
update, but that can happen.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-11-24 18:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-24 14:14 Vincent Donnefort
2021-11-24 17:11 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-11-24 17:58   ` Vincent Donnefort
2021-11-24 18:04     ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2021-11-25  9:10 ` Vincent Guittot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix per-CPU kthread and wakee stacking for asym CPU capacity' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).