[tip: sched/urgent] sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance

[tip-bot2 for Keisuke Nishimura]

The following commit has been merged into the sched/urgent branch of tip:

Commit-ID:     6d7e4782bcf549221b4ccfffec2cf4d1a473f1a3
Gitweb:        https://git.kernel.org/tip/6d7e4782bcf549221b4ccfffec2cf4d1a473f1a3
Author:        Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@xxxxxxxx>
AuthorDate:    Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:38:22 +01:00
Committer:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CommitterDate: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 22:27:01 +01:00

sched/fair: Fix the decision for load balance

should_we_balance is called for the decision to do load-balancing.
When sched ticks invoke this function, only one CPU should return
true. However, in the current code, two CPUs can return true. The
following situation, where b means busy and i means idle, is an
example, because CPU 0 and CPU 2 return true.

        [0, 1] [2, 3]
         b  b   i  b

This fix checks if there exists an idle CPU with busy sibling(s)
after looking for a CPU on an idle core. If some idle CPUs with busy
siblings are found, just the first one should do load-balancing.

Fixes: b1bfeab9b002 ("sched/fair: Consider the idle state of the whole core for load balance")
Signed-off-by: Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231031133821.1570861-1-keisuke.nishimura@xxxxxxxx
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 +++++++---
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 025d909..d7a3c63 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -11184,12 +11184,16 @@ static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
 			continue;
 		}
 
-		/* Are we the first idle CPU? */
+		/*
+		 * Are we the first idle core in a non-SMT domain or higher,
+		 * or the first idle CPU in a SMT domain?
+		 */
 		return cpu == env->dst_cpu;
 	}
 
-	if (idle_smt == env->dst_cpu)
-		return true;
+	/* Are we the first idle CPU with busy siblings? */
+	if (idle_smt != -1)
+		return idle_smt == env->dst_cpu;
 
 	/* Are we the first CPU of this group ? */
 	return group_balance_cpu(sg) == env->dst_cpu;