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:   Mon, 1 Jul 2019 15:43:43 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, tkjos@google.com,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        quentin.perret@linaro.org, chris.redpath@arm.com,
        steven.sistare@oracle.com, subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com,
        songliubraving@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/2] sched/fair: Fallback to sched-idle CPU in absence
 of idle CPUs
Message-ID: <20190701134343.GT3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cover.1561523542.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1561523542.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:36:28AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We try to find an idle CPU to run the next task, but in case we don't
> find an idle CPU it is better to pick a CPU which will run the task the
> soonest, for performance reason.
> 
> A CPU which isn't idle but has only SCHED_IDLE activity queued on it
> should be a good target based on this criteria as any normal fair task
> will most likely preempt the currently running SCHED_IDLE task
> immediately. In fact, choosing a SCHED_IDLE CPU over a fully idle one
> shall give better results as it should be able to run the task sooner
> than an idle CPU (which requires to be woken up from an idle state).
> 
> This patchset updates both fast and slow paths with this optimization.

So this basically does the trivial SCHED_IDLE<-* wakeup preemption test;
one could consider doing the full wakeup preemption test instead.

Now; the obvious argument against doing this is cost; esp. the cgroup
case is very expensive I suppose. But it might be a fun experiment to
try.

That said; I'm tempted to apply these patches..