mirror of
https://github.com/sched-ext/scx.git
synced 2024-11-28 13:40:28 +00:00
scx_rustland: more robust CPU selection logic in the dispatcher
Instead of just trying the target CPU and the previously used CPU, we could cycle among all the available CPUs (if both those CPUs cannot be used), before using the global DSQ. This allows to not de-prioritize too much tasks that can't be scheduled on the CPU selected by the scheduler (or their previously used CPU), and we can still dispatch them using SCX_DSQ_LOCAL_ON, like any other task. Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
18a990ae82
commit
05d997c539
@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
|
||||
*/
|
||||
#define MAX_CPUS 1024
|
||||
|
||||
/* !0 for veristat, set during init */
|
||||
const volatile u32 num_possible_cpus = 8;
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Exit info (passed to the user-space counterpart).
|
||||
*/
|
||||
@ -282,6 +285,38 @@ static void dispatch_local(struct task_struct *p, u64 enq_flags)
|
||||
scx_bpf_dispatch(p, SCX_DSQ_LOCAL, slice_ns, enq_flags | SCX_ENQ_LOCAL);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Get a valid CPU to dispatch a task.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* First we check if the designated CPU is available, otherwise we check if the
|
||||
* previously used CPU is still available (trying to reduce migrations), if
|
||||
* both are busy return a random CPU available according to the bitmask, or
|
||||
* -ENOENT if none of the allowed CPUs are available.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
static s32 get_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p, s32 cpu)
|
||||
{
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Check if the designated CPU can be used to dispatch the task.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (bpf_cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
|
||||
return cpu;
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* The designated CPU is unavailable, check if the previously used CPU
|
||||
* is available.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
cpu = scx_bpf_task_cpu(p);
|
||||
if (bpf_cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
|
||||
return cpu;
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Otherwise get a random CPU available according to the cpumask.
|
||||
* Return -ENOENT if no CPU is available.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
cpu = bpf_cpumask_any_distribute(p->cpus_ptr);
|
||||
return cpu < num_possible_cpus ? : -ENOENT;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Dispatch a task on a target CPU.
|
||||
*
|
||||
@ -291,25 +326,22 @@ static void dispatch_local(struct task_struct *p, u64 enq_flags)
|
||||
*/
|
||||
static void dispatch_task(struct task_struct *p, s32 cpu, u64 enq_flags)
|
||||
{
|
||||
if (!bpf_cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr)) {
|
||||
cpu = scx_bpf_task_cpu(p);
|
||||
if (!bpf_cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr)) {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Both the designated CPU and the previously used CPU
|
||||
* are unavailable, we need to fallback to the global DSQ.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* This is not necessarily a problem, using the global
|
||||
* DSQ will give a small performance penalty to the
|
||||
* task (because it needs to wait for the local DSQ to
|
||||
* be drained). So for now simply report the event as a
|
||||
* "dispatch failure" and keep going.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
dbg_msg("%s: pid=%d (fail)", __func__, p->pid);
|
||||
__sync_fetch_and_add(&nr_failed_dispatches, 1);
|
||||
scx_bpf_dispatch(p, SCX_DSQ_GLOBAL, slice_ns,
|
||||
enq_flags);
|
||||
return;
|
||||
}
|
||||
cpu = get_task_cpu(p, cpu);
|
||||
if (cpu < 0) {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* We couldn't find any available CPU that can be used
|
||||
* immediately to dispatch the task.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* This is not necessarily a problem, using the global DSQ will
|
||||
* give a small performance penalty to the task (because it
|
||||
* needs to wait for the local DSQ to be drained). So for now
|
||||
* simply report the event as a "dispatch failure" and keep
|
||||
* going.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
dbg_msg("%s: pid=%d (fail)", __func__, p->pid);
|
||||
__sync_fetch_and_add(&nr_failed_dispatches, 1);
|
||||
scx_bpf_dispatch(p, SCX_DSQ_GLOBAL, slice_ns, enq_flags);
|
||||
return;
|
||||
}
|
||||
dbg_msg("%s: pid=%d cpu=%ld", __func__, p->pid, cpu);
|
||||
scx_bpf_dispatch(p, SCX_DSQ_LOCAL_ON | cpu, slice_ns,
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user