Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Add SMT4 group_smt_balance handling

[Shrikanth Hegde]

On 9/6/23 12:07 AM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-09-05 at 13:33 +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>>
>> On 8/22/23 12:49 AM, Tim Chen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2023-08-07 at 15:06 +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 16:09:30 -0700
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Add SMT4 group_smt_balance handling
>>>>>
>>>>> For SMT4, any group with more than 2 tasks will be marked as
>>>>> group_smt_balance. Retain the behaviour of group_has_spare by marking
>>>>> the busiest group as the group which has the least number of idle_cpus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, handle rounding effect of adding (ncores_local + ncores_busy)
>>>>> when the local is fully idle and busy group has more than 2 tasks.
>>>>> Local group should try to pull at least 1 task in this case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>> index a87988327f88..566686c5f2bd 100644
>>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>> @@ -9563,7 +9563,7 @@ static inline long sibling_imbalance(struct lb_env *env,
>>>>>  	imbalance /= ncores_local + ncores_busiest;
>>>>>  
>>>>>  	/* Take advantage of resource in an empty sched group */
>>>>> -	if (imbalance == 0 && local->sum_nr_running == 0 &&
>>>>> +	if (imbalance <= 1 && local->sum_nr_running == 0 &&
>>>>>  	    busiest->sum_nr_running > 1)
>>>>>  		imbalance = 2;
>>>>>  
>>>>> @@ -9751,6 +9751,20 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
>>>>>  		break;
>>>>>  
>>>>>  	case group_smt_balance:
>>>>> +		/* no idle cpus on both groups handled by group_fully_busy below */
>>>>> +		if (sgs->idle_cpus != 0 || busiest->idle_cpus != 0) {
>>>>> +			if (sgs->idle_cpus > busiest->idle_cpus)
>>>>> +				return false;
>>>>> +			if (sgs->idle_cpus < busiest->idle_cpus)
>>>>> +				return true;
>>>>> +			if (sgs->sum_nr_running <= busiest->sum_nr_running)
>>>>> +				return false;
>>>>> +			else
>>>>> +				return true;
>>>>> +		}
>>>>> +		goto fully_busy;
>>>>> +		break;
>>>>> +
>>>>>  	case group_fully_busy:
>>>>>  		/*
>>>>>  		 * Select the fully busy group with highest avg_load. In
>>>>> @@ -9763,7 +9777,7 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
>>>>>  		 * select the 1st one, except if @sg is composed of SMT
>>>>>  		 * siblings.
>>>>>  		 */
>>>>> -
>>>>> +fully_busy:
>>>>>  		if (sgs->avg_load < busiest->avg_load)
>>>>>  			return false;
>>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tim, Peter. 
>>>>
>>>> group_smt_balance(cluster scheduling), patches are in tip/sched/core. I dont 
>>>> see this above patch there yet. Currently as is, this can cause function difference 
>>>> in SMT4 systems( such as Power10). 
>>>>
>>>> Can we please have the above patch as well in tip/sched/core?
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Just back from my long vacation.  Wonder if you have any comments on the above patch
>>> for fixing the SMT4 case?
>>>
>>> Tim
>>
>> Hi Tim, Peter. 
>>
>> are there any concerns with the above patch for fixing the SMT4 case. 
>> Currently the behavior is group_smt_balance is set for having even 2 tasks in 
>> SMT4, ideally it should be same as the group_has_spare. 
>>
>> The above patch copies the same behavior to group_smt_balance. 
>>>
> 
> You mean simplify the patch as below?  I think that should be fine.  Can you
> make sure it works for SMT4?  And I can update the patch once you confirm it
> works properly.
> 
> Tim
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 6e7ee2efc1ba..48e9ab7f8a87 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -9764,16 +9764,9 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
>  
>         case group_smt_balance:
>                 /* no idle cpus on both groups handled by group_fully_busy below */
> -               if (sgs->idle_cpus != 0 || busiest->idle_cpus != 0) {
> -                       if (sgs->idle_cpus > busiest->idle_cpus)
> -                               return false;
> -                       if (sgs->idle_cpus < busiest->idle_cpus)
> -                               return true;
> -                       if (sgs->sum_nr_running <= busiest->sum_nr_running)
> -                               return false;
> -                       else
> -                               return true;
> -               }
> +               if (sgs->idle_cpus != 0 || busiest->idle_cpus != 0)
> +                       goto has_spare;
> +
>                 goto fully_busy;
>  
>         case group_fully_busy:
> @@ -9809,6 +9802,7 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env,
>                  * as we do not want to pull task off SMT core with one task
>                  * and make the core idle.
>                  */
> +has_spare:
>                 if (smt_vs_nonsmt_groups(sds->busiest, sg)) {
>                         if (sg->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY && sgs->sum_h_nr_running <= 1)
>                                 return false;
> 
> 
> 

Hi Tim,

In case you were waiting for my reply as inferred from other email. 
The above change looks fine as well. This would avoid duplication of
code for group_smt_balance. 

Acked-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>