On 19/11/2018 17:33, Steven Sistare wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Thinking about misfit stealing, we can't use the sd_llc_shared's because
>> on big.LITTLE misfit migrations happen across LLC domains.
>>
>> I was thinking of adding a misfit sparsemask to the root_domain, but
>> then I thought we could do the same thing for cfs_overload_cpus.
>>
>> By doing so we'd have a single source of information for overloaded CPUs,
>> and we could filter that down during idle balance - you mentioned earlier
>> wanting to try stealing at each SD level. This would also let you get
>> rid of [PATCH 02].
>>
>> The main part of try_steal() could then be written down as something like
>> this:
>>
>> ----->8-----
>>
>> for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd) {
>> span = sched_domain_span(sd)
>>
>> for_each_sparse_wrap(src_cpu, overload_cpus) {
>> if (cpumask_test_cpu(src_cpu, span) &&
>> steal_from(dts_rq, dst_rf, &locked, src_cpu)) {
>> stolen = 1;
>> goto out;
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> ------8<-----
>>
>> We could limit the stealing to stop at the highest SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
>> domain for now so there would be no behavioural change - but we'd
>> factorize the #ifdef SCHED_SMT bit. Furthermore, the door would be open
>> to further stealing.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> That is not efficient for a multi-level search because at each domain level
> we
> would (re) iterate over overloaded candidates that do not belong in that
> level.
Mmm I was thinking we could abuse the wrap() and start at
(fls(prev_span) + 1), but we're not guaranteed to have contiguous spans -
the Arm Juno for instance has [0, 3, 4], [1, 2] as MC-level domains, so
that goes down the drain.
Another thing that has been trotting in my head would be some helper to
create a cpumask from a sparsemask (some sort of sparsemask_span()),
which would let us use the standard mask operators:
----->8-----
struct cpumask *overload_span = sparsemask_span(overload_cpus)
for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd)
for_each_cpu_and(src_cpu, overload_span, sched_domain_span(sd))
<steal_from here>
-----8>-----
The cpumask could be part of the sparsemask struct to save us the
allocation, and only updated when calling sparsemask_span().
> To extend stealing across LLC, I would like to keep the per-LLC sparsemask,
> but add to each SD a list of sparsemask pointers. The list nodes would be
> private, but the sparsemask structs would be shared. Each list would include
> the masks that overlap the SD's members. The list would be a singleton at the
> core and LLC levels (same as the socket level for most processors), and would
> have multiple elements at the NUMA level.
>
I see. As for misfit, creating asym_cpucapacity siblings of the sd_llc_*()
functions seems a bit much - there'd be a lot of redundancy for basically
just a single shared sparsemask, which is why I was rambling about moving
things to root_domain.
Having different locations where sparsemasks are stored is a bit of a
pain which I'd like to avoid, but if it can't be unified I suppose we'll
have to live with it.
> - Steve
>
