On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:20:48PM -0700, Sai Gurrappadi wrote:
> Hi Morten,
>
> On 06/22/2016 10:03 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > +/*
> > + * group_smaller_cpu_capacity: Returns true if sched_group sg has smaller
> > + * per-cpu capacity than sched_group ref.
> > + */
> > +static inline bool
> > +group_smaller_cpu_capacity(struct sched_group *sg, struct sched_group *ref)
> > +{
> > + return sg->sgc->max_capacity * capacity_margin <
> > + ref->sgc->max_capacity * 1024;
> > +}
> > +
> > static inline enum
> > group_type group_classify(struct sched_group *group,
> > struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
> > @@ -6892,6 +6903,19 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env
> > *env,
> > if (sgs->avg_load <= busiest->avg_load)
> > return false;
> >
> > + if (!(env->sd->flags & SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY))
> > + goto asym_packing;
> > +
> > + /* Candidate sg has no more than one task per cpu and has
> > + * higher per-cpu capacity. Migrating tasks to less capable
> > + * cpus may harm throughput. Maximize throughput,
> > + * power/energy consequences are not considered.
> > + */
> > + if (sgs->sum_nr_running <= sgs->group_weight &&
> > + group_smaller_cpu_capacity(sds->local, sg))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > +asym_packing:
>
> What about the case where IRQ/RT work reduces the capacity of some of
> these bigger CPUs? sgc->max_capacity might not necessarily capture
> that case.
Right, we could possibly improve this by using min_capacity instead, but
we could end up allowing tasks to be pulled to lower capacity cpus just
because one big cpu has reduced capacity due to RT/IRQ pressure and
therefore has lowered the groups min_capacity.
Ideally we should check all the capacities, but that complicates things
a lot.
Would you prefer min_capacity instead, or attempts to consider all the
cpu capacities available in both groups?
