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, 13 Dec 2019 11:02:00 +0530
From:   Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/core: Preempt current task in favour of bound
 kthread
Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20191120191636.GI4097@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20191120220313.GC18056@pauld.bos.csb>
 <20191121132937.GW4114@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20191209165122.GA27229@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20191209231743.GA19256@dread.disaster.area>
 <20191210054330.GF27253@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20191210172307.GD9139@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20191211173829.GB21797@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20191211224617.GE19256@dread.disaster.area>
 <20191212101031.GV2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191212101031.GV2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Message-Id: <20191213053200.GA18602@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2019-12-12 11:10:31]:

> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 09:46:17AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:08:29PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> 
> Good point, something to maybe try (Srikar?) is making tick preemption
> more agressive for such tasks.
> 
> The below extends the previous patch to retain the set_next_buddy() on
> wakeup, but does not make the actual preemption more agressive.
> 
> Then it 'fixes' the tick preemption to better align with the actual
> scheduler pick (ie. consider the buddy hints).
> 

Just to let you know, I tried the patch, but it doesn't help.
The results were identical to the one without the patch.

I think its probably because when we allow the task to stay on the runqueue,
it will surely lead to load_balance and so we see the active-balance kick
in.

Peter, Based on what Dave is asking for, would you be okay if we add

1. A delayed_wake_list per runqueue,
2. A new wake_up API to add tasks to this delayed wake_list
3. On schedule, tasks on the delayed_wake_list would be actually woken up.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju