On 2022-10-27 03:01, Luben Tuikov wrote: > On 2022-10-25 13:50, Luben Tuikov wrote: >> Looking... >> >> Regards, >> Luben >> >> On 2022-10-25 09:35, Alex Deucher wrote: >>> + Luben >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 2:55 AM brolerliew <brolerliew@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> When entity move from one rq to another, current_entity will be set to NULL >>>> if it is the moving entity. This make entities close to rq head got >>>> selected more frequently, especially when doing load balance between >>>> multiple drm_gpu_scheduler. >>>> >>>> Make current_entity to next when removing from rq. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: brolerliew <brolerliew@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 5 +++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c >>>> index 2fab218d7082..00b22cc50f08 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c >>>> @@ -168,10 +168,11 @@ void drm_sched_rq_remove_entity(struct drm_sched_rq *rq, >>>> spin_lock(&rq->lock); >>>> >>>> atomic_dec(rq->sched->score); >>>> - list_del_init(&entity->list); >>>> >>>> if (rq->current_entity == entity) >>>> - rq->current_entity = NULL; >>>> + rq->current_entity = list_next_entry(entity, list); >>>> + >>>> + list_del_init(&entity->list); >>>> >>>> if (drm_sched_policy == DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO) >>>> drm_sched_rq_remove_fifo_locked(entity); >>>> -- >>>> 2.34.1 >>>> >> > > Looks good. I'll pick it up into some other changes I've in tow, and repost > along with my changes, as they're somewhat related. Actually, the more I look at it, the more I think that we do want to set rq->current_entity to NULL in that function, in order to pick the next best entity (or scheduler for that matter), the next time around. See sched_entity.c, and drm_sched_rq_select_entity() where we start evaluating from the _next_ entity. So, it is best to leave it to set it to NULL, for now. Regards, Luben
