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

[Vincent Guittot]

On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 18:11, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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) &&

Can't you delete SD_PREFER_SIBLING flags when building topology like
SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY does ?

Generally speaking  SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY and SD_ASYM_PACKING are doing
quite similar thing, it would be good to get one common solution
instead 2 parallel paths

>             busiest->sum_nr_running > local->sum_nr_running + 1)
>                 goto force_balance;
>
> --
> 2.32.0
>