Re: [RFC PATCH 07/13] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling.

[Aaron Lu]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:35:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Discussed a lot with Vineeth. Below is an improved version of the pick_task()
> similification.
> 
> It also handles the following "bug" in the existing code as well that Vineeth
> brought up in OSPM: Suppose 2 siblings of a core: rq 1 and rq 2.
> 
> In priority order (high to low), say we have the tasks:
> A - untagged  (rq 1)
> B - tagged    (rq 2)
> C - untagged  (rq 2)
> 
> Say, B and C are in the same scheduling class.
> 
> When the pick_next_task() loop runs, it looks at rq 1 and max is A, A is
> tenantively selected for rq 1. Then it looks at rq 2 and the class_pick is B.
> But that's not compatible with A. So rq 2 gets forced idle.
> 
> In reality, rq 2 could have run C instead of idle. The fix is to add C to the
> tag tree as Peter suggested in OSPM.

I like the idea of adding untagged task to the core tree.

> Updated diff below:
> 
> ---8<-----------------------
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 005d7f7323e2d..625377f393ed3 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -182,9 +182,6 @@ static void sched_core_enqueue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>  
>  	rq->core->core_task_seq++;
>  
> -	if (!p->core_cookie)
> -		return;
> -
>  	node = &rq->core_tree.rb_node;
>  	parent = *node;
>  
> @@ -215,7 +212,7 @@ static void sched_core_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>  
>  void sched_core_add(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>  {
> -	if (p->core_cookie && task_on_rq_queued(p))
> +	if (task_on_rq_queued(p))
>  		sched_core_enqueue(rq, p);
>  }

It appears there are other call sites of sched_core_enqueue() where
core_cookie is checked: cpu_cgroup_fork() and __sched_write_tag().