sched/fair: Consider the idle state of the whole core for load balance
should_we_balance() traverses the group_balance_mask (AND'ed with lb_env:: cpus) starting from lower numbered CPUs looking for the first idle CPU. In hybrid x86 systems, the siblings of SMT cores get CPU numbers, before non-SMT cores: [0, 1] [2, 3] [4, 5] 6 7 8 9 b i b i b i b i i i In the figure above, CPUs in brackets are siblings of an SMT core. The rest are non-SMT cores. 'b' indicates a busy CPU, 'i' indicates an idle CPU. We should let a CPU on a fully idle core get the first chance to idle load balance as it has more CPU capacity than a CPU on an idle SMT CPU with busy sibling. So for the figure above, if we are running should_we_balance() to CPU 1, we should return false to let CPU 7 on idle core to have a chance first to idle load balance. A partially busy (i.e., of type group_has_spare) local group with SMT cores will often have only one SMT sibling busy. If the destination CPU is a non-SMT core, partially busy, lower-numbered, SMT cores should not be considered when finding the first idle CPU. However, in should_we_balance(), when we encounter idle SMT first in partially busy core, we prematurely break the search for the first idle CPU. Higher-numbered, non-SMT cores is not given the chance to have idle balance done on their behalf. Those CPUs will only be considered for idle balancing by chance via CPU_NEWLY_IDLE. Instead, consider the idle state of the whole SMT core. Signed-off-by: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> Co-developed-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/807bdd05331378ea3bf5956bda87ded1036ba769.1688770494.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment