Re: [PATCH 4/6] sched/fair: Skip prefer sibling move between SMT group and non-SMT group

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 09:09:54AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> From: Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Do not try to move tasks between non SMT sched group and SMT sched
> group for "prefer sibling" load balance.
> Let asym_active_balance_busiest() handle that case properly.
> Otherwise we could get task bouncing back and forth between
> the SMT sched group and non SMT sched group.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 8a325db34b02..58ef7d529731 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -10411,8 +10411,12 @@ static struct sched_group *find_busiest_group(struct lb_env *env)
>  	/*
>  	 * Try to move all excess tasks to a sibling domain of the busiest
>  	 * group's child domain.
> +	 *
> +	 * Do not try to move between non smt sched group and smt sched
> +	 * group. Let asym active balance properly handle that case.
>  	 */
>  	if (sds.prefer_sibling && local->group_type == group_has_spare &&
> +	    !asymmetric_groups(sds.busiest, sds.local) &&
>  	    busiest->sum_nr_running > local->sum_nr_running + 1)
>  		goto force_balance;

This seems to have the hidden assumption that a !SMT core is somehow
'less' that an SMT code. Should this not also look at
sched_asym_prefer() to establush this is so?

I mean, imagine I have a regular system and just offline one smt sibling
for giggles.