Re: [PATCH 3/5] sched/fair: Prefer fully-idle SMT cores in asym-capacity idle selection

[Dietmar Eggemann]

On 28.04.26 16:41, Andrea Righi wrote:
> On systems with asymmetric CPU capacity (e.g., ACPI/CPPC reporting
> different per-core frequencies), the wakeup path uses

I assume those CPPC systems w/ different per-core frequencies (like your
Vera) are the only real one which would make use of this. Mobile
big.LITTLE/DynamIQ don't have SMT.

Phil mentioned other machines (PowerPC ?) which had issues with using
select_idle_capacity():

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260325124840.GA98184@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[...]

> On an SMT system with asymmetric CPU capacities, SMT-aware idle
> selection has been shown to improve throughput by around 15-18% for
> CPU-bound workloads, running an amount of tasks equal to the amount of
> SMT cores.

Just to make sure, this should be your internal NVBLAS benchmark. Is
this 'ASYM (mainline) vs. ASYM + SMT' or 'NO_ASYM vs. ASYM + SMT' ? I
try to match the cover letter's table numbers.

[...]

> @@ -7997,8 +8013,9 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
>  static int
>  select_idle_capacity(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int target)
>  {
> +	bool prefers_idle_core = sched_smt_active() && test_idle_cores(target);

nit: why prefers_idle_core and not has_idle_core like in sis()?

[...]

> @@ -8047,12 +8102,17 @@ static inline bool asym_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
>  				 unsigned long util_max,
>  				 int cpu)
>  {
> -	if (sched_asym_cpucap_active())
> +	if (sched_asym_cpucap_active()) {
>  		/*
>  		 * Return true only if the cpu fully fits the task requirements
>  		 * which include the utilization and the performance hints.
> +		 *
> +		 * When SMT is active, also require that the core has no busy
> +		 * siblings.
>  		 */
> -		return (util_fits_cpu(util, util_min, util_max, cpu) > 0);
> +		return (!sched_smt_active() || is_core_idle(cpu)) &&
> +		       (util_fits_cpu(util, util_min, util_max, cpu) > 0);
> +	}

Not sure whether this has been discussed already. This makes all early
bailout conditions in sis() idle core aware for 'ASYM + SMT' but it's
not for 'NO_ASYM'?

Otherwise, LGTM.