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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5eba2fb4af9ebc7396101bb9bd6c8aa9c8af0710.1571899508.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <20191030164714.GH28938@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20191030164714.GH28938@suse.de>
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:42:03 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=hssu_uvb1J=0Od=KziAQVSMmbBt9zxa4mYttKhFJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make sched-idle cpu selection consistent throughout
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 22:17, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:

> As the patch stands, I think a fork-intensive workload where each
> process is doing small amounts of work will suffer from overloading
> domains and have variable performance depending on how quickly the load
> balancer reacts.

Just wanted to clarify this slightly in case it is confusing. Once a
newly forked
(non SCHED_IDLE) task gets placed on a sched-idle CPU, it won't remain
sched-idle anymore and we will again start looking for a fully idle CPU. So,
we won't put everything on a small set of CPUs, but just one SCHED_NORMAL
task on a CPU unless we are out of idle CPUs.

Do you have some specific test in mind which I can run to test this ?

--
Viresh