Re: [RFC PATCH 09/23] sched/fair: Use task-class performance score to pick the busiest group

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:38:41PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 01:01:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 04:11:51PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:

> > > @@ -9049,6 +9111,12 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
> > >  		/* Prefer to move from lowest priority CPU's work */
> > >  		if (sched_asym_prefer(sg->asym_prefer_cpu, sds->busiest->asym_prefer_cpu))
> > >  			return false;
> > > +
> > > +		/* @sg and @sds::busiest have the same priority. */
> > > +		if (sched_asym_class_pick(sds->busiest, sg, &sds->busiest_stat, sgs))
> > > +			return false;
> > > +
> > > +		/* @sg has lower priority than @sds::busiest. */
> > >  		break;
> > >  
> > >  	case group_misfit_task:
> > 
> > So why does only this one instance of asym_prefer() require tie
> > breaking?
> 
> This is the only place in which two sched groups with running tasks and of
> equal priority are compared.
> 
> In all other places sched_asym_prefer() is used to compare the destination
> CPU with others. Since asym_packing is done only when the destination CPU is
> idle, there is no need to break this tie.

That would make for a fine comment, no? Because as presented one is left
wondering, why if asym_prefer() needs tie breaking, only this one site
needs it.

> > And while looking through this, I must ask about the comment that goes
> > with sched_set_itmt_core_prio() vs the sg->asym_prefer_cpu assignment in
> > init_sched_groups_capacity(), what-up ?!
> 
> Are you referring to this comment?
> 
> 	"No need to rebuild sched domain after updating
> 	 the CPU priorities. The sched domains have no
> 	 dependency on CPU priorities"
> 
> If yes, then it looks wrong to me. Sched domains are rebuilt after updating
> priorities.

Right.