Received: by 2002:ac0:a582:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m2-v6csp3294931imm; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 08:18:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60vGGI9LtPPvhF8+XOecuzkfQ8mUtXA6iB4eG+vKGMRvjTfvGWQj0rJVDH1qjLc4r1wrC9p X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8342:: with SMTP id z2-v6mr34107789pln.147.1539962282051; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 08:18:02 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1539962282; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=X1jZwgQhkJWFi2B/Fss7OhKVrkkKomSFJgUw71aGKB/GBHm5GZ4XPRhOrnY5T9NF+u ALQCQ5yTrC9fjYQEW4YyGZLpsn3d8b+sX77xKJl4kIAs1a+DgKniKE3Nf29xocQu6Xn+ sIkZr1uG42u/x3ICcABf0HjffDlTlifecth9mqgZJubl9CMEBH+turFC6Or1/0VsFYfj D3MNPoJHoQGcYURLNpoyXmnlyK3d5wgV8bukd6czVbpbEI/lYTMsIPAz4ifJvD9qLPFi MhypcIsXISVI+Jipe+583wZU6KiPYyQfMyzrHHQzH+AIK6Sr6+PtLBjlO29GkJbAj91W a8OQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :cc:to:from:subject:message-id; bh=WmaMxdpSPc1wcgyDyTEujRh4Nme6W5aglVRhVZCDhvQ=; b=KrVdgVtsfaGZgMnIuMuKA6Ufay1Rb6Q+41iz5X4TiT3Pzb1eV7rnlItC/S5GeDPVR5 9Ndgpw3pRcq+OqrH5tlulVoWo/peqC/6q4JTssjIpsfnYqlwEQxtr/Bc2/WD6gewsRh1 dZcFFrW5kpvSeZUEGrsz3TtHdpN+ZVlz3FqC3xItG49G1t6FDwPTTHj4eCDkayjh02xw 1XPXg/xueBwYHr2u/s3v8oo3Xf63CMW7idTJ09dVqwi6RlpozOOmw6s06gG9RKGBbuQa FwxLYUju5qRvb0s1RtCbwO3bOV0bRq5lmgx4OW/bN0g/06RgWPLep8WaXW2ceMRRgWVQ VvXQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 3-v6si26044920pfm.51.2018.10.19.08.17.46; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 08:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727010AbeJSXXd (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 19 Oct 2018 19:23:33 -0400 Received: from shelob.surriel.com ([96.67.55.147]:45578 "EHLO shelob.surriel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726605AbeJSXXd (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2018 19:23:33 -0400 Received: from imladris.surriel.com ([96.67.55.152]) by shelob.surriel.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gDWWA-0002GZ-5r; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:16:50 -0400 Message-ID: <824154aacf8a5cbff57b4df6cb072b7d6e277f34.camel@surriel.com> Subject: Re: [RFC 00/60] Coscheduling for Linux From: Rik van Riel To: "Jan H." =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sch=F6nherr?= , Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Subhra Mazumdar Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:16:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20180907214047.26914-1-jschoenh@amazon.de> <20181017020933.GC24723@lerouge> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-wI8nA2L1ALPaFNJh5pkd" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-1.fc28) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-wI8nA2L1ALPaFNJh5pkd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2018-10-19 at 13:40 +0200, Jan H. Sch=C3=B6nherr wrote: >=20 > Now, it would be possible to "invent" relocatable cpusets to address > that > issue ("I want affinity restricted to a core, I don't care which"), > but > then, the current way how cpuset affinity is enforced doesn't scale > for > making use of it from within the balancer. (The upcoming load > balancing > portion of the coscheduler currently uses a file similar to > cpu.scheduled > to restrict affinity to a load-balancer-controlled subset of the > system.) Oh boy, so the coscheduler is going to get its own load balancer? At that point, why bother integrating the coscheduler into CFS, instead of making it its own scheduling class? CFS is already complicated enough that it borders on unmaintainable. I would really prefer to have the coscheduler code separate from CFS, unless there is a really compelling reason to do otherwise. --=20 All Rights Reversed. --=-wI8nA2L1ALPaFNJh5pkd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEKR73pCCtJ5Xj3yADznnekoTE3oMFAlvJ9WEACgkQznnekoTE 3oM/nggAmei8WMFFpIDkYV2ylWz0Qc5w9z9zdFoLkxj0Q8g1HtIbfJLSHYN6o9TM gMMkX5lkXkeT8/cHy5KAQALnert835kB0a9ONLaPq+uwtk9/kGPfHAp9rrpKvO50 O/hhYtWzfL3QIwPaAkb564UC7+fHMraSpdNnq234qGhyJODgJsilEZx4ykk2fv71 HD6HwGOq6QKk5qN5QxOxu7Zvmv2NOxvX16/BYBMK1Aypbm842fd1vp7tk3M1Wo/v nBTyDr2iACAWxjeF6iqBeBcb2hX8UV/4ERfsHERMlUV5gQ5U4iz0E55wGZOkGAFJ mwXD//jw9ICUFHxJ3MUDHbvzvcHfzw== =NclB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-wI8nA2L1ALPaFNJh5pkd--