sched/topology: Fix overlapping sched_group_mask

commit 73bb059f9b8a00c5e1bf2f7ca83138c05d05e600 upstream.

The point of sched_group_mask is to select those CPUs from
sched_group_cpus that can actually arrive at this balance domain.

The current code gets it wrong, as can be readily demonstrated with a
topology like:

  node   0   1   2   3
    0:  10  20  30  20
    1:  20  10  20  30
    2:  30  20  10  20
    3:  20  30  20  10

Where (for example) domain 1 on CPU1 ends up with a mask that includes
CPU0:

  [] CPU1 attaching sched-domain:
  []  domain 0: span 0-2 level NUMA
  []   groups: 1 (mask: 1), 2, 0
  []   domain 1: span 0-3 level NUMA
  []    groups: 0-2 (mask: 0-2) (cpu_capacity: 3072), 0,2-3 (cpu_capacity: 3072)

This causes sched_balance_cpu() to compute the wrong CPU and
consequently should_we_balance() will terminate early resulting in
missed load-balance opportunities.

The fixed topology looks like:

  [] CPU1 attaching sched-domain:
  []  domain 0: span 0-2 level NUMA
  []   groups: 1 (mask: 1), 2, 0
  []   domain 1: span 0-3 level NUMA
  []    groups: 0-2 (mask: 1) (cpu_capacity: 3072), 0,2-3 (cpu_capacity: 3072)

(note: this relies on OVERLAP domains to always have children, this is
 true because the regular topology domains are still here -- this is
 before degenerate trimming)

Debugged-by: Lauro Ramos Venancio <lvenanci@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: e3589f6 ("sched: Allow for overlapping sched_domain spans")
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

Author: Peter Zijlstra

kernel/sched/core.c

@@ -6123,6 +6123,9 @@ enum s_alloc {
  * Build an iteration mask that can exclude certain CPUs from the upwards
  * domain traversal.
  *
+ * Only CPUs that can arrive at this group should be considered to continue
+ * balancing.
+ *
  * Asymmetric node setups can result in situations where the domain tree is of
  * unequal depth, make sure to skip domains that already cover the entire
  * range.
@@ -6141,11 +6144,24 @@ static void build_group_mask(struct sched_domain *sd, struct sched_group *sg)
 
 	for_each_cpu(i, span) {
 		sibling = *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sd, i);
-		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(sibling)))
+
+		/*
+		 * Can happen in the asymmetric case, where these siblings are
+		 * unused. The mask will not be empty because those CPUs that
+		 * do have the top domain _should_ span the domain.
+		 */
+		if (!sibling->child)
+			continue;
+
+		/* If we would not end up here, we can't continue from here */
+		if (!cpumask_equal(sg_span, sched_domain_span(sibling->child)))
 			continue;
 
 		cpumask_set_cpu(i, sched_group_mask(sg));
 	}
+
+	/* We must not have empty masks here */
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_empty(sched_group_mask(sg)));
 }
 
 /*