On 2017/10/14 8:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:27 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>> There are several factors in the menu governor to predict the next
>> idle interval:
>> - the next timer
>> - the recent idle interval history
>> - the corrected idle interval pattern
On 2017/10/14 8:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:28 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>> Record the overhead of idle entry in micro-second
>>
>
> What is this needed for?
We need to figure out how long of a idle is a short idle and recording
the overhead is for this purp
On 2017/10/14 8:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:30 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>> If the next idle is expected to be a fast idle, we should keep tick
>> on before going into idle
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li
>
> This also can be merged with the previous patch (a
On 2017/10/16 12:45, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 11:26 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> I'll try to move quiet_vmstat() into the normal idle branch if this patch
>> series
>> are reasonable. Is fast_idle a good indication for it?
>
> see
On 2017/10/14 8:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:32 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>> Add a knob to make fast idle threshold tunable
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li
>
> I first of all am not sure about the need to add a tunable for this at all
> in the first place.
Ac
On 2017/10/14 9:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:33 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>> Introduce irq timings output as a factor to predict the duration
>> of the coming idle
>>
>> @@ -342,13 +343,27 @@ void cpuidle_entry_end(void)
>> void cpuidle_predict(void)
>> {
>>
On 2017/10/16 14:25, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 13:34 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2017/10/16 12:45, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 11:26 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to move quiet_vmstat() into th
On 2017/10/14 8:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:31 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>> sleep length indicates how long we'll be idle. Currently, it's updated
>> only when tick nohz enters. These patch series make a new requirement
>> with tick, so we should keep sleep le
On 2017/10/14 9:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:26 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>> We found under some latency intensive workloads, short idle periods occurs
>> very common, then idle entry and exit path starts to dominate, so it's
>> important to optimize them. To d
On 2017/10/14 8:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:29 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>> For the governor has predict functionality, add a new predict
>> interface in cpuidle framework to call and use it.
>
> Care to describe how it is intended to work?
>
> Also this pat
On 2017/10/14 9:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> index 0951dac..8704f3c 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
>> @@ -225,6 +225,7 @@ static void do_idle(void)
>> */
>> __current_set_polling();
>> qui
On 2017/10/17 7:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:46:41 AM CEST Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2017/10/14 8:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:31 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>> sleep length indicates how long
On 2017/10/17 8:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:00:45 AM CEST Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2017/10/14 8:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:32 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>> Add a knob to make fast idle threshol
On 2017/10/17 8:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 5:11:57 AM CEST Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2017/10/14 8:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:28 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>> Record the overhead of idle entry in
On 2017/10/17 8:07, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 9:44:41 AM CEST Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> Or you concern why the threshold can't simply be tick interval?
>
> That I guess.
>
>> For the latter, if the threshold is close/equal to the t
On 2018/3/5 21:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:05:10PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 12:47:23PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
IOW, the target residency of the selected state does
On 2018/3/6 16:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:15:10AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2018/3/5 21:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:05:10PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Peter Zijls
On 2018/11/18 22:03, Samuel Neves wrote:
> On 11/17/18 12:36 AM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2018/11/17 7:10, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> Just to be clear: there are 3 AVX-512 XSAVE states:
>>>
>>> XFEATURE_OPMASK,
>>> XFEATURE_ZMM_Hi256,
>&
On 2018/11/18 22:03, Samuel Neves wrote:
> On 11/17/18 12:36 AM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2018/11/17 7:10, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> Just to be clear: there are 3 AVX-512 XSAVE states:
>>>
>>> XFEATURE_OPMASK,
>>> XFEATURE_ZMM_Hi256,
>&
On 2018/11/20 1:39, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 07:00:07AM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> Add a /proc//arch_state interface to expose per-task cpu specific
>> state values.
>>
>> Exposing AVX-512 Hi16_ZMM registers usage is for the user space job
>> scheduler to cluster AVX-512 usin
On 2018/11/21 17:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 09:19:36AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 09:39:00AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> Also; you were going to shop around with the other architectures to see
>>>> what the
On 2018/11/15 23:40, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/14/18 3:00 PM, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> AVX-512 component has 3 states, only Hi16_ZMM state causes notable
>> frequency drop. Add per task Hi16_ZMM state tracking to context switch.
>
> Just curious, but is there any public documentation of this? It seem
On 2018/11/15 23:18, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/14/18 3:00 PM, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> +void arch_thread_state(struct seq_file *m, struct task_struct *task)
>> +{
>> +/*
>> + * Report AVX-512 Hi16_ZMM registers usage
>> + */
>> +if (task->thread.fpu.hi16zmm_usage)
>> +seq_pu
On 2018/11/17 7:10, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/15/18 4:21 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> "Core cycles where the core was running with power delivery for license
>> level 2 (introduced in Skylake Server microarchitecture). This includes
>> high current AVX 512-bit instruc
On 2018/11/9 19:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Aubrey,
>
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2018, Aubrey Li wrote:
>
>> Subject: x86/fpu: detect AVX task
>
> What is an AVX task? I know what you mean, but for the casual reader this
> is not very informative. So something like:
>
> x86/fpu: Track AVX usage of
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your comments!
On 2018/11/12 10:32, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/7/18 9:16 AM, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> XSAVES and its variants use init optimization to reduce the amount of
>> data that they save to memory during context switch. Init optimization
>> uses the state component bitmap t
On 2018/11/12 13:31, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 07:32:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>
Expose the per-task cpu specific thread state value, it's helpful
for userland to classify and schedule the tasks by dif
On 2018/11/12 23:46, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/11/18 9:38 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
>>> Do we want this, or do we want something more time-based?
>>>
>> This counter is introduced here to solve the race of context switch and
>> VZEROUPPER. 3 context switches
On 2018/11/13 18:25, David Laight wrote:
> From: Li, Aubrey
>> Sent: 12 November 2018 01:41
> ...
>> VZEROUPPER instruction resets the init state. If context switch happens
>> to occur exactly after VZEROUPPER instruction, XINUSE bitmap is empty(all
>> zeros), which i
On 2018/12/12 8:14, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 12/11/2018 3:46 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2018/12/12 1:18, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 12/10/18 4:24 PM, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>> The tracking turns on the usage flag at the next context switch of
>>>> th
On 2018/12/18 16:33, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Aubrey,
>
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Aubrey Li wrote:
>
> RESEND
>
> Please don't do that. This is not a resend because you changed something,
> so it's new version. Usually I ignore resends when I have the original
> submission already lined up for
On 2018/12/18 22:14, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
>> b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
>> index a38bf5a1e37a..8778ac172255 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu
On 2018/12/18 23:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
>> On 2018/12/18 22:14, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
>>>> b/arch/x86/inclu
On 2018/12/19 1:14, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/18/18 7:32 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> What exactly prevents a 32bit kernel from having the AVX512 feature bit
>> set? And if it cannot be set on 32bit, then why are you compiling that code
>> in at all?
>
> There are three different AVX-512 states
On 2018/12/19 5:38, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> I misunderstood, you mean 32bit kernel, not 32bit machine. Theoretically
>> 32bit
>> kernel can use AVX512, but not sure if anyone use it like this.
>> get_jiffies_64()
>> includes jiffies_lock ops so not good in context switch. So I want to use raw
>> jif
On 2018/12/12 1:18, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/10/18 4:24 PM, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> The tracking turns on the usage flag at the next context switch of
>> the task, but requires 3 consecutive context switches with no usage
>> to clear it. This decay is required because well-written AVX-512
>> applicat
On 2018/12/12 1:20, Dave Hansen wrote:
> to update AVX512 state
>> + */
>> +static inline void update_avx512_state(struct fpu *fpu)
>> +{
>> +/*
>> + * AVX512 state is tracked here because its use is known to slow
>> + * the max clock speed of the core.
>> + *
>> + * However, A
On 2018/11/8 1:41, Tim Chen wrote:
> On 11/06/2018 10:23 AM, Aubrey Li wrote:
>
>> +static inline void update_avx_state(struct avx_state *avx)
>> +{
>> +/*
>> + * Check if XGETBV with ECX = 1 supported. XGETBV with ECX = 1
>> + * returns the logical-AND of XCR0 and XINUSE. XINUSE is a
On 2018/11/8 18:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 07:32:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>>> Expose the per-task cpu specific thread state value, it's helpful
>>> for userland to classify and schedule the tasks by different policies
>>
>> That's pretty v
The patch is based on v3.18.
Freeze is a general power saving state that processes are frozen, devices
are suspended and CPUs are in idle state. However, when the system enters
freeze state, there are a few timers keep ticking and hence consumes more
power unnecessarily. The observed timer events
On 2015/1/22 17:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 12:02 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2015/1/21 5:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> The patch adds CHT PMC interface. This exposes all the South IP device power
>>> states and S0ix states for CHT. The bit m
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for the comments, my feedback below:
On 2015/1/22 18:15, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2014, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/clockchips.h b/include/linux/clockchips.h
>> index 2e4cb67..d118e0b 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/clockchi
Happy New Year, can you please take a look at this patch now?
Thanks,
-Aubrey
On 2014/12/9 11:01, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> The patch is based on v3.18.
>
> Freeze is a general power saving state that processes are frozen, devices
> are suspended and CPUs are in idle state. However, whe
On 2015/1/26 22:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, January 26, 2015 03:15:43 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, January 26, 2015 10:40:24 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Li, Au
On 2015/1/26 22:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, January 26, 2015 10:40:24 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>> On 2015/1/22 18:15, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> + /*
>>>>&
On 2015/1/27 23:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 04:03:29 PM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2015/1/26 22:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 26, 2015 10:40:24 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Li, Aubrey wrote:
&g
On 2015/3/20 16:38, Huang Ying wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> commit 7486341a98f26857f383aec88ffa10950087c3a1 ("x86/platform, acpi: Bypass
> legacy PIC and PIT in ACPI hardware reduced mode")
>
>
> +---
On 2015/3/30 16:37, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 2015/3/30 16:28, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Ying,
>>
>> can you please try this patch to see if the problem is gone on your side?
> Hi Aubrey,
> I would be better if we could change RTC driver instead.
Hey Gerry,
IRQ8 for RTC i
mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs. (rtc0)
So we want to statically assign IRQ numbers in ACPI hardware reduced mode to
fix this error, this also matches with the original IRQ assignment policy.
Signed-off-by: Li Aubrey
Cc: Alan Cox
Cc: Len Brown
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Arjan van de
On 2019/4/17 7:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:32:48 +0800 Aubrey Li
> wrote:
>
>> The architecture specific information of the running processes could
>> be useful to the userland. Add support to examine process architecture
>> specific information externally.
>
> The impleme
On 2019/4/25 5:18, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> index 5ad92419be19..d5a9c5ddd453 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> @@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ config X86
>> select USER_STACKTRACE_SUPPO
On 2019/4/25 15:20, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
>> On 2019/4/25 5:18, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>>>> index 5ad92419
On 2019/4/25 16:20, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2019/4/25 15:20, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> Let the arch select CONFIG_PROC_PID_ARCH_STATUS
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't get the point here, above you mentioned not mixing arch an
On 2019/4/25 18:11, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 25.04.19 03:50, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
>>>> +>>> +config PROC_PID_ARCH_STATUS>>> + bool "Enable
> /proc//arch_status file">>>> Why is this switchable? x86 selects
The original patch seems missing the following change for 32bit.
Thanks,
-Aubrey
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c b/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
index 9fbb10383434..78de28ebc45d 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static u64 cpuacct_cpuusage_read(stru
On 2019/4/10 9:58, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 6:55 PM Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> The architecture specific information of the running processes could
>> be useful to the userland. Add support to examine process architecture
>> specific information externally.
>>
>> Signed-off-by:
On 2019/4/10 10:25, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 7:20 PM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/4/10 9:58, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 6:55 PM Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The architecture specific information of t
On 2019/4/10 10:36, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2019/4/10 10:25, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 7:20 PM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2019/4/10 9:58, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 6:55 PM Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>>&
On 2019/4/10 22:54, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 8:40 PM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/4/10 10:36, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>> On 2019/4/10 10:25, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 7:20 PM Li, Aubrey
>>>> wrote
Hi Vincent,
Sorry for the delay, I just returned from Chinese New Year holiday.
On 2021/1/25 22:51, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 15:00, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/1/25 18:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 06:50, Aubrey Li wrot
On 2021/2/24 1:33, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 06:41, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay, I just returned from Chinese New Year holiday.
>>
>> On 2021/1/25 22:51, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>
On 2021/1/27 21:51, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Changelog since v4
> o Avoid use of intermediate variable during select_idle_cpu
>
> Changelog since v3
> o Drop scanning based on cores, SMT4 results showed problems
>
> Changelog since v2
> o Remove unnecessary parameters
> o Update nr during scan only wh
Hi Joel,
On 2020/8/10 0:44, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Aubrey,
>
> Apologies for replying late as I was still looking into the details.
>
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 11:57:20AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> [...]
>> +/*
>> + * Core scheduling policy:
>> + * - COR
On 2020/8/13 7:08, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:01:24AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>>
>> On 2020/8/10 0:44, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> Hi Aubrey,
>>>
>>> Apologies for replying late as I was still looking into the det
On 2020/7/1 5:32, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> Sixth iteration of the Core-Scheduling feature.
>
> Core scheduling is a feature that allows only trusted tasks to run
> concurrently on cpus sharing compute resources (eg: hyperthreads on a
> core). The goal is to mitigate the core-level side-chan
On 2020/12/11 23:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 02:44, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. Every time
>> a CPU enters idle, the CPU is set in idle cpumask to be a wakeup
>> target. And if the CPU is not in idle, the CPU is cleared in idl
On 2020/12/11 23:22, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 16:19, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/12/11 23:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 02:44, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sche
On 2020/12/7 23:42, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 04:04:41PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 10:15, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a minimal series to reduce the amount of runqueue scanning in
>>> select_idle_sibling in the worst case.
>>>
>>> Patch 1 remove
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the comments.
On 2020/12/8 22:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:49:57AM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index c4da7e17b906..b8af602dea79 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
On 2021/1/15 18:08, Mel Gorman wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
>
> Both select_idle_core() and select_idle_cpu() do a loop over the same
> cpumask. Observe that by clearing the already visited CPUs, we can
> fold the iteration and iterate a core at a time.
>
> All we need to do is remember
On 2021/3/22 20:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:31:09PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Please let me know if I put cookie match check at the right position
>> in task_hot(), if so, I'll obtain some performance data of it.
>
Hi Peter,
On 2020/12/11 23:07, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 02:44, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. Every time
>> a CPU enters idle, the CPU is set in idle cpumask to be a wakeup
>> target. And if the CPU is not in idle, the CPU is cle
Hi Peter,
On 2021/3/20 23:34, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:32:48PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> @@ -7530,8 +7543,9 @@ int can_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p, struct
>> lb_env *env)
>> * We do not migrate tasks that are:
>> * 1) throttled_lb_pair,
Hi Barry,
On 2021/3/21 6:14, Barry Song wrote:
> update_idle_core() is only done for the case of sched_smt_present.
> but test_idle_cores() is done for all machines even those without
> smt.
The patch looks good to me.
May I know for what case we need to keep CONFIG_SCHED_SMT for non-smt
machines
On 2021/3/22 15:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 09:34:00PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 2021/3/20 23:34, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:32:48PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>>>> @@ -753
On 2021/3/22 16:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> Do you have any suggestions before we drop it?
>
> Yeah, how about you make it part of task_hot() ? Have task_hot() refuse
> migration it the cookie doesn't match.
>
> task_hot() is a hint and will get ignored when appropriate.
>
Please let me kn
On 2021/3/22 20:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:31:09PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Please let me know if I put cookie match check at the right position
>> in task_hot(), if so, I'll obtain some performance data of it.
>
On 2021/2/24 16:15, Aubrey Li wrote:
> A long-tail load balance cost is observed on the newly idle path,
> this is caused by a race window between the first nr_running check
> of the busiest runqueue and its nr_running recheck in detach_tasks.
>
> Before the busiest runqueue is locked, the tasks o
On 2020/11/18 20:06, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>
> On 16/11/20 20:04, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> From: Aubrey Li
>>
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. When a CPU
>> enters idle, if the idle driver indicates to stop tick, this CPU
>> is set in the idle cpumask to be a wakeup target.
Hi Vincent,
On 2020/11/18 21:36, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 04:48, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> From: Aubrey Li
>>
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. When a CPU
>> enters idle, if the idle driver indicates to stop tick, this CPU
>> is set in the idle cpumask t
On 2020/12/9 0:03, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 16:35, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>
>> As noted by Vincent Guittot, avg_scan_costs are calculated for SIS_PROP
>> even if SIS_PROP is disabled. Move the time calculations under a SIS_PROP
>> check and while we are at it, exclude the cost of
On 2020/12/9 16:15, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le mercredi 09 déc. 2020 à 14:24:04 (+0800), Aubrey Li a écrit :
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. Every time
>> a CPU enters idle, the CPU is set in idle cpumask to be a wakeup
>> target. And if the CPU is not in idle, the CPU is c
On 2020/12/9 17:05, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:28:11PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> nr = div_u64(span_avg, avg_cost);
>>>> else
>>>> nr = 4;
>>>>
On 2020/12/9 21:09, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 11:58, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/12/9 16:15, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 09 déc. 2020 à 14:24:04 (+0800), Aubrey Li a écrit :
>>>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched
On 2020/12/8 23:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> As noted by Vincent Guittot, avg_scan_costs are calculated for SIS_PROP
> even if SIS_PROP is disabled. Move the time calculations under a SIS_PROP
> check and while we are at it, exclude the cost of initialising the CPU
> mask from the average scan cost.
>
Hi Mel,
On 2020/12/9 22:36, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 02:24:04PM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. Every time
>> a CPU enters idle, the CPU is set in idle cpumask to be a wakeup
>> target. And if the CPU is not in idle, the CPU is cle
On 2020/12/10 19:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 04:23:47PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>> I ran this patch with tbench on top of of the schedstat patches that
>>> track SIS efficiency. The tracking adds overhead so it's not a perfect
>>> perform
On 2020/11/19 16:19, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 02:34, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On 2020/11/18 21:36, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 04:48, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Aubre
On 2020/11/30 17:33, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 05:26:31PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2020/11/26 16:32, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 11:20:41AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> On 2020/11/26 6:57, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>&g
On 2020/11/30 18:35, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 00:20, Joel Fernandes (Google)
> wrote:
>>
>> From: Aubrey Li
>>
>> - Don't migrate if there is a cookie mismatch
>> Load balance tries to move task from busiest CPU to the
>> destination CPU. When core scheduling is
On 2020/11/30 22:47, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 15:40, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>
>> The clearing of SMT siblings from the SIS mask before checking for an idle
>> core is a small but unnecessary cost. Defer the clearing of the siblings
>> until the scan moves to the next potential t
On 2020/11/23 12:38, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:43PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> From: Peter Zijlstra
>>
>> When a sibling is forced-idle to match the core-cookie; search for
>> matching tasks to fill the core.
>>
>> rcu_read_unlock() can incur an infrequent d
On 2020/11/24 7:35, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:07:27PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2020/11/23 12:38, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:43PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>>>> From: Peter Zijlstra
>>>>
&
Hi Vincent,
On 2020/11/23 17:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Aubrey,
>
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 13:15, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>
>> Add idle cpumask to track idle cpus in sched domain. When a CPU
>> enters idle, if the idle driver indicates to stop tick, this CPU
>> is set in the idle cpumask to be a
On 2020/12/4 21:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Vincent Guittot
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 12:30, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> The intent was that the sibling might still be an idle candidate.
On 2020/12/4 21:40, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2020/12/4 21:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Vincent Guittot
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 12:30, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56
On 2020/12/4 21:47, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:40, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/12/4 21:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Vincent Guittot
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 1
On 2020/11/25 1:01, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Aubrey,
>
> Le mardi 24 nov. 2020 à 15:01:38 (+0800), Li, Aubrey a écrit :
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On 2020/11/23 17:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Hi Aubrey,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 13:15,
On 2020/11/24 23:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:36:10PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Skip this cpu if source task's cookie does not mat
On 2020/11/25 16:31, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 03:03, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/11/25 1:01, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Hi Aubrey,
>>>
>>> Le mardi 24 nov. 2020 à 15:01:38 (+0800), Li, Aubrey a écrit :
>>>> Hi V
1 - 100 of 327 matches
Mail list logo
