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: <cover.1572437285.git.vpillai@digitalocean.com>
 <5e3cea14-28d1-bf1e-cabe-fb5b48fdeadc@linux.intel.com> <3c3c56c1-b8dc-652c-535e-74f6dcf45560@linux.intel.com>
 <CANaguZAz+mw1Oi8ecZt+JuCWbf=g5UvKrdSvAeM82Z1c+9oWAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e322a252-f983-e3f3-f823-16d0c16b2867@linux.intel.com> <20200212230705.GA25315@sinkpad>
 <29d43466-1e18-6b42-d4d0-20ccde20ff07@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <29d43466-1e18-6b42-d4d0-20ccde20ff07@linux.intel.com>
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:10:53 +0800
Message-ID: <CAERHkruG4y8si9FrBp7cZNEdfP7EzxbmYwvdF2EvHLf=mU1mgg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        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>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBXZWlzYmVja2Vy?= <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>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:37 AM Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/12/20 3:07 PM, Julien Desfossez wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Have you guys been able to make progress on the issues with I/O intensive workload?
> >
> > I finally have some results with the following branch:
> > https://github.com/digitalocean/linux-coresched/tree/coresched/v4-v5.5.y
> >
> >
> > So the main conclusion is that for all the test cases we have studied,
> > core scheduling performs better than nosmt ! This is different than what
> > we tested a while back, so it's looking really good !
>
> Thanks for the data.  They look really encouraging.
>
> Aubrey is working on updating his patches so it will load balance
> to the idle cores a bit better.  We are testing those and will post
> the update soon.

I added a helper to check task and cpu cookie match, including the
entire core idle case. The refined patchset updated at here:
https://github.com/aubreyli/linux/tree/coresched_v4-v5.5.2

This branch also includes Tim's patchset. According to our testing
result, the performance data looks on par with the previous version.
A good news is, v5.4.y stability issue on our 8 numa node machine
is gone on this v5.5.2 branch.

Thanks,
-Aubrey