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, 4 Mar 2020 12:11:51 -0500
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cpuset: distribute tasks within affinity masks
Message-ID: <20200304171151.GL189690@mtj.thefacebook.com>
References: <20200228010134.42866-1-joshdon@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200228010134.42866-1-joshdon@google.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 05:01:34PM -0800, Josh Don wrote:
> From: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
> 
> Currently, when updating the affinity of tasks via either cpusets.cpus,
> or, sched_setaffinity(); tasks not currently running within the newly
> specified CPU will be arbitrarily assigned to the first CPU within the
> mask.
> 
> This (particularly in the case that we are restricting masks) can
> result in many tasks being assigned to the first CPUs of their new
> masks.
> 
> This:
>  1) Can induce scheduling delays while the load-balancer has a chance to
>     spread them between their new CPUs.
>  2) Can antogonize a poor load-balancer behavior where it has a
>     difficult time recognizing that a cross-socket imbalance has been
>     forced by an affinity mask.
> 
> With this change, tasks are distributed ~evenly across the new mask.  We
> may intentionally move tasks already running on a CPU within the mask to
> avoid edge cases in which a CPU is already overloaded (or would be
> assigned to more times than is desired).
> 
> We specifically apply this behavior to the following cases:
> - modifying cpuset.cpus
> - when tasks join a cpuset
> - when modifying a task's affinity via sched_setaffinity(2)

Looks fine to me. Peter, what do you think?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun