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:   Wed, 8 May 2019 10:30:09 +0800
From:   Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@linux.alibaba.com>
To:     Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>
Cc:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, mingo@kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, pjt@google.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, kerrnel@google.com,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2
Message-ID: <20190508023009.GA89792@aaronlu>
References: <20190423180238.GG22260@pauld.bos.csb>
 <20190423184527.6230-1-vpillai@digitalocean.com>
 <20190429035320.GB128241@aaronlu>
 <20190506193937.GA10264@sinkpad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190506193937.GA10264@sinkpad>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 03:39:37PM -0400, Julien Desfossez wrote:
> On 29-Apr-2019 11:53:21 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > This is what I have used to make sure no two unmatched tasks being
> > scheduled on the same core: (on top of v1, I thinks it's easier to just
> > show the diff instead of commenting on various places of the patches :-)
> 
> We imported this fix in v2 and made some small changes and optimizations
> (with and without Peter’s fix from https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/26/658)
> and in both cases, the performance problem where the core can end up

By 'core', do you mean a logical CPU(hyperthread) or the entire core?

> idle with tasks in its runqueues came back.

Assume you meant a hyperthread, then the question is: when a hyperthread
is idle with tasks sitting in its runqueue, do these tasks match with the
other hyperthread's rq->curr? If so, then it is a problem that need to
be addressed; if not, then this is due to the constraint imposed by the
mitigation of L1TF.

Thanks.