Re: [PATCHv4 12/12] sched/core: Disable SD_PREFER_SIBLING on asymmetric cpu capacity domains

[Vincent Guittot]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 12:53, Valentin Schneider
<valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 06/08/18 11:20, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Hi Valentin,
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 at 14:33, Valentin Schneider
> > <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 31/07/18 13:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> This can easily happen with SD_PREFER_SIBLING enabled too so I wouldn't
> >>>> say that this patch breaks anything that isn't broken already. In fact
> >>>> we this happening with and without this patch applied.
> >>>
> >>> At least for the use case  above, this doesn't happen when
> >>> SD_PREFER_SIBLING is set
> >>>
> >>
> >> On my HiKey960 I can see coscheduling on a big CPU while a LITTLE is free
> >> with **and** without SD_PREFER_SIBLING. Having it set only means that in
> >> some cases the imbalance will be re-classified as group_overloaded instead
> >> of group_misfit_task, so we'll skip the misfit logic when we shouldn't (this
> >> happens on Juno for instance).
> >
> > Can you give more details about your test case ?
> >
>
> I've been running the same test case as presented in the cover letter on
> my HiKey960 but with sched_switch tracing and with no tasksets. I've just
> re-run the testcase with tasksets and I get similar results (i.e. a big
> with coscheduling while a LITTLE is free) with or without the flag.
>
> >>
> >> It does nothing for the "1 task per CPU" problem that Morten described above.
> >> When you have this little amount of tasks, load isn't very relevant, but it
> >> skews the load-balancer into thinking the LITTLE CPUs are more busy than
> >> the bigs even though there's an idle one in the lot.

ok. I meant  that without misfit patch, SD_PREFER_SIBLING ensures 1
task per CPU and no co scheduling. But co scheduling appears with
misfit task patchset

Vincent
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Morten