+2
−1
+23
−12
+2
−1
+14
−7
+2
−1
Loading
FROMLIST: sched/fair: Use wake_q length as a hint for wake_wide
(from https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9895261/ ) This patch adds a parameter to select_task_rq, sibling_count_hint allowing the caller, where it has this information, to inform the sched_class the number of tasks that are being woken up as part of the same event. The wake_q mechanism is one case where this information is available. select_task_rq_fair can then use the information to detect that it needs to widen the search space for task placement in order to avoid overloading the last-level cache domain's CPUs. * * * The reason I am investigating this change is the following use case on ARM big.LITTLE (asymmetrical CPU capacity): 1 task per CPU, which all repeatedly do X amount of work then pthread_barrier_wait (i.e. sleep until the last task finishes its X and hits the barrier). On big.LITTLE, the tasks which get a "big" CPU finish faster, and then those CPUs pull over the tasks that are still running: v CPU v ->time-> ------------- 0 (big) 11111 /333 ------------- 1 (big) 22222 /444| ------------- 2 (LITTLE) 333333/ ------------- 3 (LITTLE) 444444/ ------------- Now when task 4 hits the barrier (at |) and wakes the others up, there are 4 tasks with prev_cpu=<big> and 0 tasks with prev_cpu=<little>. want_affine therefore means that we'll only look in CPUs 0 and 1 (sd_llc), so tasks will be unnecessarily coscheduled on the bigs until the next load balance, something like this: v CPU v ->time-> ------------------------ 0 (big) 11111 /333 31313\33333 ------------------------ 1 (big) 22222 /444|424\4444444 ------------------------ 2 (LITTLE) 333333/ \222222 ------------------------ 3 (LITTLE) 444444/ \1111 ------------------------ ^^^ underutilization So, I'm trying to get want_affine = 0 for these tasks. I don't _think_ any incarnation of the wakee_flips mechanism can help us here because which task is waker and which tasks are wakees generally changes with each iteration. However pthread_barrier_wait (or more accurately FUTEX_WAKE) has the nice property that we know exactly how many tasks are being woken, so we can cheat. It might be a disadvantage that we "widen" _every_ task that's woken in an event, while select_idle_sibling would work fine for the first sd_llc_size - 1 tasks. IIUC, if wake_affine() behaves correctly this trick wouldn't be necessary on SMP systems, so it might be best guarded by the presence of SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY? * * * Final note.. In order to observe "perfect" behaviour for this use case, I also had to disable the TTWU_QUEUE sched feature. Suppose during the wakeup above we are working through the work queue and have placed tasks 3 and 2, and are about to place task 1: v CPU v ->time-> -------------- 0 (big) 11111 /333 3 -------------- 1 (big) 22222 /444|4 -------------- 2 (LITTLE) 333333/ 2 -------------- 3 (LITTLE) 444444/ <- Task 1 should go here -------------- If TTWU_QUEUE is enabled, we will not yet have enqueued task 2 (having instead sent a reschedule IPI) or attached its load to CPU 2. So we are likely to also place task 1 on cpu 2. Disabling TTWU_QUEUE means that we enqueue task 2 before placing task 1, solving this issue. TTWU_QUEUE is there to minimise rq lock contention, and I guess that this contention is less of an issue on big.LITTLE systems since they have relatively few CPUs, which suggests the trade-off makes sense here. Change-Id: I2080302839a263e0841a89efea8589ea53bbda9c Signed-off-by:Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@arm.com> Signed-off-by: