Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] sched/fair: Check a task has a fitting cpu when updating misfit

From: Vincent Guittot
Date: Thu Mar 07 2024 - 04:14:38 EST


On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 22:47, Qais Yousef <qyousef@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 03/03/24 17:44, Qais Yousef wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 174687252e1a..b0e60a565945 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -8260,6 +8260,8 @@ static void set_task_max_allowed_capacity(struct task_struct *p)
> > cpumask_t *cpumask;
> >
> > cpumask = cpu_capacity_span(entry);
> > + if (!cpumask_intersects(cpu_active_mask, cpumask))
> > + continue;
> > if (!cpumask_intersects(p->cpus_ptr, cpumask))
> > continue;
> >
> > @@ -8269,6 +8271,53 @@ static void set_task_max_allowed_capacity(struct task_struct *p)
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
> >
> > +static void __update_tasks_max_allowed_capacity(unsigned long capacity)
> > +{
> > + struct task_struct *g, *p;
> > +
> > + for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
> > + if (fair_policy(p->policy) && p->max_allowed_capacity == capacity)
>
> This condition actually not good enough. We need to differentiate between going
> online/offline. I didn't want to call set_task_max_allowed_capacity()
> unconditionally and make hotplug even slower.

But should we even try to fix this ? hotplugging a cpu is a special
case and with patch 4 you will not increase lb_interval anymore

>
> I'm doing more testing and will post v8 once done. I need to cater for a new
> user when dynamic EM changes capacities too.. Small things can snow ball easily
> hehe.
>
> > + set_task_max_allowed_capacity(p);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Handle a cpu going online/offline changing the available capacity levels.
> > + */
> > +static void update_tasks_max_allowed_capacity(int cpu, bool online)
> > +{
> > + struct asym_cap_data *entry;
> > + bool do_update = false;
> > +
> > + if (!sched_asym_cpucap_active())
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (cpuhp_tasks_frozen)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + /* Did a capacity level appear/disappear? */
> > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &asym_cap_list, link) {
> > + unsigned int nr_active;
> > + cpumask_t *cpumask;
> > +
> > + cpumask = cpu_capacity_span(entry);
> > +
> > + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpumask))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + nr_active = cpumask_weight_and(cpu_active_mask, cpumask);
> > + if (online)
> > + do_update = nr_active == 1;
> > + else
> > + do_update = !nr_active;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + if (do_update)
> > + __update_tasks_max_allowed_capacity(entry->capacity);
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > +}
> > +
> > static void set_cpus_allowed_fair(struct task_struct *p, struct affinity_context *ctx)
> > {
> > set_cpus_allowed_common(p, ctx);
> > @@ -12500,6 +12549,8 @@ static void rq_online_fair(struct rq *rq)
> > update_sysctl();
> >
> > update_runtime_enabled(rq);
> > +
> > + update_tasks_max_allowed_capacity(cpu_of(rq), true);
> > }
> >
> > static void rq_offline_fair(struct rq *rq)
> > @@ -12511,6 +12562,8 @@ static void rq_offline_fair(struct rq *rq)
> >
> > /* Ensure that we remove rq contribution to group share: */
> > clear_tg_offline_cfs_rqs(rq);
> > +
> > + update_tasks_max_allowed_capacity(cpu_of(rq), false);
> > }
> >
> > #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
> > --
> > 2.34.1