On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 16:40, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 04:23:48PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 15:31, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:47:48PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > &g
Hi Aubrey,
Le mardi 24 nov. 2020 à 15:01:38 (+0800), Li, Aubrey a écrit :
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 2020/11/23 17:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Hi Aubrey,
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 13:15, Aubrey Li wrote:
> >>
> >> Add idle cpumask to track idle
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 03:03, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
> On 2020/11/25 1:01, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Hi Aubrey,
> >
> > Le mardi 24 nov. 2020 à 15:01:38 (+0800), Li, Aubrey a écrit :
> >> Hi Vincent,
> >>
> >> On 2020/11/23 17:27, Vincent Guittot
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 00:20, Joel Fernandes (Google)
wrote:
>
> From: Peter Zijlstra
>
> Because sched_class::pick_next_task() also implies
> sched_class::set_next_task() (and possibly put_prev_task() and
> newidle_balance) it is not state invariant. This makes it unsuitable
> for remote task se
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 14:37, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
> On 2020/11/25 16:31, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 03:03, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2020/11/25 1:01, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> Hi Aubrey,
> >>>
> >>
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 10:35, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
> On 2020/11/26 16:14, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 14:37, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2020/11/25 16:31, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 03:03, Li, Aubrey
>
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 10:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 05:28:36PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 00:20, Joel Fernandes (Google)
>
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > +static struct task_str
1).
>
maybe add a
Fixes: 7f65ea42eb00 ("sched/fair: Add util_est on top of PELT")
> Signed-off-by: Xuewen Yan
> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot
> ---
> Changes since v2:
> -modify the comment
> -move util_est_dequeue above within_margin
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 04:04, Barry Song wrote:
>
> ARM64 server chip Kunpeng 920 has 6 clusters in each NUMA node, and each
> cluster has 4 cpus. All clusters share L3 cache data, but each cluster
> has local L3 tag. On the other hand, each clusters will share some
> internal system bus. This mean
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 10:20, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Vincent Guittot [mailto:vincent.guit...@linaro.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 9:27 PM
> > To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> > Cc: Valentin
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 15:30, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
> Hi Mel,
>
> On 2020/11/26 20:13, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 02:57:07PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >> Hi Robot,
> >>
> >> On 2020/11/25 17:09, kernel test robot wrote:
> >>> Greeting,
> >>>
> >>> FYI, we noticed a -29.5% regressi
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
wrote:
>
> >
> > Sorry. Please ignore this. I added some printk here while testing
> > one numa. Will update you the data in another email.
>
> Re-tested in one NUMA node(cpu0-cpu23):
>
> g=1
> Running in threaded mode with 1 groups using 40 f
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 10:11, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Vincent Guittot [mailto:vincent.guit...@linaro.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 10:04 PM
> > To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> > Cc: Valentin
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 10:39, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 10:11, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-
> > > From: Vincent Guittot [mailto:vincent.guit...@linaro.org]
> > > Sent:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 15:11, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> select_idle_core is called when SMT is active and there is likely a free
> core available. It may find idle CPUs but this information is simply
> discarded and the scan starts over again with select_idle_cpu.
>
> This patch caches information on i
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 15:11, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> The target CPU is definitely not idle in both select_idle_core and
> select_idle_cpu. For select_idle_core(), the SMT is potentially
> checked unnecessarily as the core is definitely not idle if the
> target is busy. For select_idle_cpu(), the fir
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 13:05, Valentin Schneider
wrote:
>
> Rik noted a while back that a handful of
>
> sd->flags & SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY
>
> & family in the CFS load-balancer code aren't guarded by the
> sched_asym_cpucapacity static branch.
guarding asym capacity with static branch in fast pat
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 13:05, Valentin Schneider
wrote:
>
> During load-balance, groups classified as group_misfit_task are filtered
> out if they do not pass
>
> group_smaller_max_cpu_capacity(, );
>
> which itself employs fits_capacity() to compare the sgc->max_capacity of
> both groups.
>
> D
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 13:05, Valentin Schneider
wrote:
>
> Consider the following (hypothetical) asymmetric CPU capacity topology,
> with some amount of capacity pressure (RT | DL | IRQ | thermal):
>
> DIE [ ]
> MC [][]
>0 1 2 3
>
> | CPU | capacity_orig | capac
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 10:12, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:00:18PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > > @@ -6157,18 +6169,31 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p,
> > > struct sched_domain *sd, int t
> > > }
> > >
> > > for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, targe
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 10:54, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:21:47AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 10:12, Mel Gorman
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:00:18PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
Hi,
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 09:28, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>
> The page order of the slab that gets chosen for a given slab
> cache depends on the number of objects that can be fit in the
> slab while meeting other requirements. We start with a value
> of minimum objects based on nr_cpu_ids that is d
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 06:31, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 06:36:31PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 09:28, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > >
> > > The page order of the slab that gets chosen for a given
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 11:01, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>
> > > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
> > > before secondaries CPUs are booted and it returns 1 instead of 224.
> > > This makes the use of num_online_cpus() irr
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 06:53, Srikar Dronamraju
wrote:
>
> * Vincent Guittot [2021-03-08 14:52:39]:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 17:41, Srikar Dronamraju
> > wrote:
> > >
>
> Thanks Vincent for your review comments.
>
> > > +static int prefe
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 00:08, Barry Song wrote:
>
> ARM64 chip Kunpeng 920 has 6 or 8 clusters in each NUMA node, and each
> cluster has 4 cpus. All clusters share L3 cache data, but each cluster
> has local L3 tag. On the other hand, each clusters will share some
> internal system bus. This means
Hi Aubrey,
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 14:51, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 2020/12/11 23:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 02:44, Aubrey Li wrote:
> >>
> >> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. Every time
> >&
USERS throughput 4420.64553.3 (3.00%)4405.8
> (-0.33%)
> sys/user:time 79.13/20.32 78.76/21.01 79/20
>
> Cc: LKML
> Cc: Michael Ellerman
> Cc: Michael Neuling
> Cc: Gautham R Shenoy
> Cc: Parth Shah
> Cc: Ingo M
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 19:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> On 1/21/21 11:01 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> >
> >> > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
> >> > before secondaries CPUs are booted and it returns 1 instead of 22
Hi Mel,
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 13:02, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:33:04PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 12:22, Mel Gorman
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Changelog since v2
> > > o Remove unnecessary param
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 13:03, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> On 1/22/21 9:03 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 19:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/21/21 11:01 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 11:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:30:52AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Hi Mel,
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 13:02, Mel Gorman
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:33:04PM +0100, Vi
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 16:46, Joel Fernandes (Google)
wrote:
>
> On an octacore ARM64 device running ChromeOS Linux kernel v5.4, I found
> that there are a lot of calls to update_blocked_averages(). This causes
> the schedule loop to slow down to taking upto 500 micro seconds at
> times (due to ne
e, abort */
> > + if (unlikely(!cppc_fi->cpu_data))
> > + return cppc_freq_invariance_exit();
> > +
> > + ret = cppc_get_perf_ctrs(i, &fb_ctrs);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pr_warn("%s: failed to read perf counters: %d\n",
> > + __func__, ret);
> > + return cppc_freq_invariance_exit();
> > + }
> > +
> > + cppc_fi->prev_perf_fb_ctrs = fb_ctrs;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Register for freq-invariance */
> > + topology_set_scale_freq_source(&cppc_sftd, cpu_present_mask);
> > +}
>
> After another very quick round of testing:
>
> Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu
> Tested-by: Ionela Voinescu
>
> I did not get the chance to test on ThunderX2 yet, but if you are happy
> with your testing on it, I won't delay this any further.
I have just run some functional tests on thx2 with rt-app: I have run
a periodic task (6ms running / 30ms periods) at different frequencies
(2.5Ghz, 2Ghz, 1.5Ghz, 1.333Ghz, 1Ghz) and the PELT signals stays the
same for all frequencies.
Tested-by: Vincent Guittot
>
> Thanks,
> Ionela.
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 15:05, Valentin Schneider
wrote:
>
> On 05/02/21 14:51, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 19:32, Valentin Schneider
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> When triggering an active load balance, sd->nr_balance_failed is se
Start to update last_blocked_load_update_tick to reduce the possibility
of another cpu starting the update one more time
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
v2:
- fixed compilation error for !CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON reported by
kernel test robot
kernel/sched/fair.c | 11 ---
1 file
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 19:32, Valentin Schneider
wrote:
>
> During load-balance, groups classified as group_misfit_task are filtered
> out if they do not pass
>
> group_smaller_max_cpu_capacity(, );
group_smaller_max_cpu_capacity and group_smaller_max_cpu_capacity are
removed in the next patch
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 19:39, Qais Yousef wrote:
>
> On 01/22/21 17:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > ---
> > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 09:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Thu 21-01-21 19:19:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [...]
> > We could also start questioning the very assumption that number of cpus
> > should
> > affect slab page size in the first place. Should it? After all, each CPU
> > will
> > have one
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 13:31, Jiang Biao wrote:
>
> From: Jiang Biao
>
> delta in update_stats_wait_end() might be negative, which would
> make following statistics go wrong.
Could you describe the use case that generates a negative delta ?
rq_clock is always increasing so this should not lead
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 21:42, Barry Song wrote:
>
> This patch is a follow-up of the 3-hops issue reported by Valentin Schneider:
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/jhjtux5edo2.mog...@arm.com/
> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201110184300.15673-1-valentin.schnei...@arm.com/
>
> Here is a br
+Adding arch arm64 Maintainers
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 06:16, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 01:03:57PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 1/22/21 9:03 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 19:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > &g
gt; > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:15:50PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > > Fixes: 11f10e5420f6 ("sched/fair: Use load instead of runnable load
> > > > > in wakeup path")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall
> > > > > R
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 20:10, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>
> Thanks for reply. Please see the replies below:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:56:22PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 16:46, Joel Fernandes (Google)
> > wrote:
&g
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 15:00, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
> On 2021/1/25 18:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 06:50, Aubrey Li wrote:
> >>
> >> A long-tail load balance cost is observed on the newly idle path,
> >> this is caused by a race wi
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 11:45, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
> On 22/01/2021 20:10, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > Thanks for reply. Please see the replies below:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:56:22PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 06:50, Aubrey Li wrote:
>
> A long-tail load balance cost is observed on the newly idle path,
> this is caused by a race window between the first nr_running check
> of the busiest runqueue and its nr_running recheck in detach_tasks.
>
> Before the busiest runqueue is locked,
ra (Intel)
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 30 --
> 1 file changed, 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index c8d8e185cf3b..fe587350ea14 100644
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 09:59, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> As noted by Vincent Guittot, avg_scan_costs are calculated for SIS_PROP
> even if SIS_PROP is disabled. Move the time calculations under a SIS_PROP
> check and while we are at it, exclude the cost of initialising the CPU
> mask f
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 09:59, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> From: Peter Zijlstra
>
> From: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
>
> Both select_idle_core() and select_idle_cpu() do a loop over the same
> cpumask. Observe that by clearing the already visited CPUs, we can
> fold the iteration and iterate a core at a ti
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 13:02, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:43:22AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > @@ -6149,18 +6161,31 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p,
> > > struct sched_domain *sd, int t
> > > }
> >
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 14:21, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 02:07:50PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > @@ -6162,18 +6162,16 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p,
> > > struct sched_domain *sd, int t
> > >
> > >
ry")
>
> Any feedback welcome.
I have tested your patchset on my setup which includes:
- scmi performance protocol
- scmi power domain protocol
- scmi clock protocol
- scmi sensor protocol
- scmi notification
- registration of a custom scmi module (still under dev)
- 2 scmi channels
And
Hi Joel,
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 19:43, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 03:42:41PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 20:10, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:56:22PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wr
Don't waste time checking whether an idle cfs_rq could be the busiest
queue. Furthermore, this can end up selecting a cfs_rq with a high load
but being idle in case of migrate_load.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 5 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 del
Few improvements related to active LB and the increase of LB interval.
I haven't seen any performcne impact on various benchmarks except for
-stress-ng mmapfork : +4.54% on my octo-core arm64
But this was somewhat expected as the changes impact mainly corner cases.
Vincent Guittot (3):
threshold on the upper limit of the task's load will decrease with the
number of failed LB until the task has migrated.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 43 +--
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/k
Setting LBF_ALL_PINNED during active load balance is only valid when there
is only 1 running task on the rq otherwise this ends up increasing the
balance interval whereas other tasks could migrate after the next interval
once they become cache-cold as an example.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 16:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 02:34:18PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Setting LBF_ALL_PINNED during active load balance is only valid when there
> > is only 1 running task on the rq otherwise this ends up increasing the
&g
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 16:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 02:34:19PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Active balance is triggered for a number of voluntary case like misfit or
> cases
> > pinned
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 16:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 04:20:55PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> > This case here is :
> > we have 2 tasks TA and TB on the rq.
> > The waiting one TB can't migrate for a reason other than the pinned
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 16:13, Valentin Schneider
wrote:
>
> On 06/01/21 14:34, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Setting LBF_ALL_PINNED during active load balance is only valid when there
> > is only 1 running task on the rq otherwise this ends up increasing the
> > balance inte
utside the cluster:
> target cpu
> 19 -> 17
> 13 -> 15
> 23 -> 20
> 23 -> 20
> 19 -> 17
> 13 -> 15
> 16 -> 17
> 19 -> 17
> 7 -> 5
> 10 -> 11
> 23 -> 20
> *23 -> 4
> ...
>
> Signed-off-by: Barr
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 02:57, wrote:
>
> From: jun qian
>
> Obviously, cfs_rq->on_list is already equal to 1 when cfs_rq->on_list
> is assigned a value of 1, so an else branch is needed to avoid unnecessary
> assignment operations.
>
> Signed-off-by: jun qian
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++--
set it by default. It is then cleared
when we find one task that can be pulled when calling detach_tasks() or
during active migration.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel
)) and the waiting task will end up to be selected after a
number of attempts.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 45 +++--
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
Don't waste time checking whether an idle cfs_rq could be the busiest
queue. Furthermore, this can end up selecting a cfs_rq with a high load
but being idle in case of migrate_load.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 5 -
1 file ch
tch 2: change how LBF_ALL_PINNED is managed as proposed by Valentin
- patch 3: updated comment and fix typos
Vincent Guittot (3):
sched/fair: skip idle cfs_rq
sched/fair: don't set LBF_ALL_PINNED unnecessarily
sched/fair: reduce cases for active balance
kernel/sched/f
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 14:00, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 2020/12/15 0:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hai, here them patches Mel asked for. They've not (yet) been through the
> > robots, so there might be some build fail for configs I've not used.
> >
> > Benchmark time :-)
> >
>
> Here
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 23:50, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 11:19:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 08:43:37PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > One bug is in __select_idle_core() though. It's scanning the SMT mask,
> > > not select_idle_mask so it can retu
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 18:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:58:33PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > The prequisite patch to make that approach work was rejected though
> > as on its own, it's not very helpful and Vincent didn't like that the
> > load_balance_mask was abused to
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 19:46, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
> On 11/12/2020 13:03, Ryan Y wrote:
> > Hi Dietmar,
> >
> > Yes! That's exactly what I meant.
> >
> >> The issue is that sugov_update_[shared\|single] -> sugov_get_util() ->
> >> cpu_util_cfs() operates on an old cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueu
le latency.
> - change clearing idle cpumask to nohz_balancer_kick(), so updating
> idle cpumask is ratelimited in the idle exiting path.
> - set SCHED_IDLE cpu in idle cpumask to allow it as a wakeup target.
>
> v1->v2:
> - idle cpumask is updated in the nohz routines, by initiali
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 at 10:30, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
> On 20/11/2020 09:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:55:27AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> - In saturated scenarios task movement will cause some transient dips,
> >>suppose we have a CPU saturated with 4 tasks
On 5 November 2013 15:06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:52:15PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> The function arch_sd_local_flags is used to set flags in sched_domains
>> according to the platform architecture. A new flag SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN is
>> al
On 5 November 2013 23:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 03:57:23PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Your proposal looks fine for me. It's clearly better to move in one
>> place the configuration of sched_domain fields. Have you already got
>>
Hi,
During the Energy-aware scheduling mini-summit, we spoke about benches
that should be used to evaluate the modifications of the scheduler.
I’d like to propose a bench that uses cyclictest to measure the wake
up latency and the power consumption. The goal of this bench is to
exercise the schedu
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:54:30AM +0000, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> During the Energy-aware scheduling mini-summit, we spoke about benches
>> that should be used to evaluate the modifications of the scheduler.
>> I’d like to propose a bench that uses cyclictest to me
On 12 March 2014 05:42, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 03/11/2014 06:48 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 11 March 2014 11:08, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>> Hi Vincent,
>>>
>>> On 03/05/2014 12:48 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>> Create a dedicated topolog
On 12 March 2014 10:00, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 05:26:06PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> The tmp value has been already calculated in:
>> scaled_busy_load_per_task =
>> (busiest->load_per_task * SCHED_POWER_SCALE) /
>>
On 12 March 2014 14:28, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 11/03/14 13:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 12:40:58PM +, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about using or not a cpu argument for
setting the flags of a level (it was part of the initia
/2013/11/5/239
[3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/5/449
Vincent Guittot (6):
sched: remove unused SCHED_INIT_NODE
sched: rework of sched_domain topology definition
sched: s390: create a dedicated topology table
sched: powerpc: create a dedicated topology table
sched: add
BOOK level is only relevant for s390 so we create a dedicated topology table
with BOOK level and remove it from default table.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
arch/s390/include/asm/topology.h | 11 +--
arch/s390/kernel/topology.c | 25 +
kernel/sched
Create a dedicated topology table for ARM which will create new level to
differentiate CPUs that can or not powergate independantly from others.
The patch gives an example of how to add domain that will take advantage of
SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
arch/arm/kernel
SD_ASYM_PACKING in the sd_flags of SMT level
during the boot sequence and before the build of the sched_domain topology.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 35 +++
kernel/sched/core.c |6 --
2 files changed, 27 insertions
balancing level between
group of CPUs than can power gate independantly. The default behavior of the
scheduler is to spread tasks across CPUs and groups of CPUs so the flag is set
into all sched_domains.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
include/linux/sched.h |1 +
kernel/sched/core.c |9
build sequence of the sched_domain will take care of
removing useless levels like those with 1 CPU and those with the same CPU span
and relevant information for load balancing than its child .
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
arch/ia64/include/asm/topology.h | 24
arch/s390/include/asm/topol
not used since new numa scheduler init sequence
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
arch/metag/include/asm/topology.h | 27 ---
1 file changed, 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/metag/include/asm/topology.h
b/arch/metag/include/asm/topology.h
index 8e9c0b3..e95f874
On 6 March 2014 01:09, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 05/03/14 07:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>
>> We replace the old way to configure the scheduler topology with a new
>> method
>> which enables a platform to declare additionnal level (if needed).
>>
>>
On 6 March 2014 06:38, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 05/03/14 07:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Create a dedicated topology table for ARM which will create new level to
>> differentiate CPUs that can or not powergate independantly from others.
>>
>> The patch gives an e
On 6 March 2014 07:17, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 05/03/14 07:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>
>> This patchset was previously part of the larger tasks packing patchset
>> [1].
>> I have splitted the latter in 3 different patchsets (at least) to make the
>> t
not used since new numa scheduler init sequence
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
arch/metag/include/asm/topology.h | 27 ---
1 file changed, 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/metag/include/asm/topology.h
b/arch/metag/include/asm/topology.h
index 8e9c0b3..e95f874
BOOK level is only relevant for s390 so we create a dedicated topology table
with BOOK level and remove it from default table.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
arch/s390/include/asm/topology.h | 11 +--
arch/s390/kernel/topology.c | 20
kernel/sched/core.c
Create a dedicated topology table for ARM which will create new level to
differentiate CPUs that can or not powergate independantly from others.
The patch gives an example of how to add domain that will take advantage of
SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
arch/arm/kernel
rpc's SMT level
Vincent Guittot (7):
sched: remove unused SCHED_INIT_NODE
sched: rework of sched_domain topology definition
sched: s390: create a dedicated topology table
sched: powerpc: create a dedicated topology table
sched: add a new SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN for sched_domain
sched: A
Set the power domain dependency at SMT level of Power8 but keep the flag
clear at CPU level. The goal is to consolidate tasks on the threads of a
core up to a level as decribed in the link below:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/12/16
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 2
balancing level between
group of CPUs than can power gate independantly. The default behavior of the
scheduler is to spread tasks across CPUs and groups of CPUs so the flag is set
into all sched_domains.
This flag is part of the topology flags that can be set by arch.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
U
and those with the same CPU span and relevant information for load balancing
than its child.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
arch/ia64/include/asm/topology.h | 24
arch/s390/include/asm/topology.h | 2 -
arch/tile/include/asm/topology.h | 33 --
include/linux/sched.h
Create a dedicated topology table for handling asymetric feature of powerpc.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 31 +++
include/linux/sched.h | 2 --
kernel/sched/core.c | 6 --
3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 16
On 19 March 2014 07:21, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 03/18/2014 11:26 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> A new flag SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN is created to reflect whether groups of CPUs
>> in a sched_domain level can or not reach different power state. As an
>>
801 - 900 of 2400 matches
Mail list logo
