Re: [PATCH 5/5] sched/fair: narrow the sched_use_asym_prio checking scenario

[kuiliang Shi]

On 1/23/24 4:47 PM, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/17/24 2:27 PM, alexs@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> From: Alex Shi <alexs@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Current function doesn't match it's comments, in fact, core_idle
>> checking is only meaningful with non-SMT.
>> So make the function right.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alexs@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 96163ab69ae0..0a321f639c79 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -9741,8 +9741,8 @@ group_type group_classify(unsigned int imbalance_pct,
>>   */
>>  static bool sched_use_asym_prio(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu)
>>  {
>> -	return (!sched_smt_active()) ||
>> -		(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY) || is_core_idle(cpu);
>> +	return	(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY) ||
>> +		(!sched_smt_active() && is_core_idle(cpu));
>>  }
> 
> This seems wrong. This would always return false for higher than SMT domains 
> if smt is active. 
> 

yes, thanks for point out.

> Was this meant to be sched_smt_active() && is_core_idle(cpu)? 

In theory, yes, it should like this. But I have no ASYM device to test. :(

Thanks!
Alex

> 
>>  
>>  static inline bool _sched_asym(struct sched_domain *sd,