On Tue, 2021-04-06 at 17:10 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 20:19, Rik van Riel <r...@surriel.com> wrote:
>
> > -static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct
> > sched_domain *sd, int target)
> > +static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct
> > sched_domain *sd, int prev, int target)
> > {
> > struct cpumask *cpus =
> > this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(select_idle_mask);
> > int i, cpu, idle_cpu = -1, nr = INT_MAX;
> > @@ -6136,23 +6163,32 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct
> > task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
> >
> > cpumask_and(cpus, sched_domain_span(sd), p->cpus_ptr);
> >
> > - if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP) && !smt) {
> > - u64 avg_cost, avg_idle, span_avg;
> > + if (!smt) {
> > + if (cpus_share_cache(prev, target)) {
>
> Have you checked the impact on no smt system ? would worth a static
> branch.
>
> Also, this doesn't need to be in select_idle_cpu() which aims to loop
> the sched_domain becaus you only compare target and prev. So you can
> move this call to select_idle_smt() in select_idle_sibling()After Mel's rewrite, there no longer are calls to select_idle_core() or select_idle_smt() in select_idle_sibling(). Everything got folded into one single loop in select_idle_cpu() I would be happy to pull the static branch out of select_idle_smt() and place it into this if condition, though. You are right that would save some overhead on non-smt systems. Peter, would you prefer a follow-up patch for that or a version 4 of the patch? -- All Rights Reversed.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
