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;
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 20:49:22 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To:     Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@google.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2
Message-ID: <20190426194921.GB18914@techsingularity.net>
References: <CAERHkrtOCbLQ-tFq9ujjnyaudtd_e0UaSA2GQG64JqdS6cuTKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190424140013.GA14594@sinkpad>
 <CAERHkrtVjU4SaHjPGNb140qBiU+wVELGaH6j9Z=cctToZ0qn9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190425095508.GA8387@gmail.com>
 <20190425144619.GX18914@techsingularity.net>
 <20190425185343.GA122353@gmail.com>
 <20190425213145.GY18914@techsingularity.net>
 <20190426084222.GC126896@gmail.com>
 <20190426104328.GA18914@techsingularity.net>
 <fbed0636-8e1f-ff3c-ef45-079497c844bb@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fbed0636-8e1f-ff3c-ef45-079497c844bb@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:37:11AM -0700, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
> > > So we avoid a maybe 0.1% scheduler placement overhead but inflict 5-10%
> > > harm on the workload, and also blow up stddev by randomly co-scheduling
> > > two tasks on the same physical core? Not a good trade-off.
> > > 
> > > I really think we should implement a relatively strict physical core
> > > placement policy in the under-utilized case, and resist any attempts to
> > > weaken this for special workloads that ping-pong quickly and benefit from
> > > sharing the same physical core.
> > > 
> > It's worth a shot at least. Changes should mostly be in the wake_affine
> > path for most loads of interest.
>
> Doesn't select_idle_sibling already try to do that by calling
> select_idle_core? For our OLTP workload we infact found the cost of
> select_idle_core was actually hurting more than it helped to find a fully
> idle core, so a net negative.
> 

select_idle_sibling is not guarnateed to call select_idle_core or avoid
selecting HT sibling whose other sibling is !idle but yes, in that path,
the search cost is a general concern which is why any change there is
tricky at best.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs