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:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 16:52:31 +0800
From:   Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>
To:     "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@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>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@google.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4
Message-ID: <20200305085231.GA12108@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain>
References: <CAERHkruG4y8si9FrBp7cZNEdfP7EzxbmYwvdF2EvHLf=mU1mgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200225034438.GA617271@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain>
 <CANaguZD205ccu1V_2W-QuMRrJA9SjJ5ng1do4NCdLy8NDKKrbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAERHkrscBs8WoHSGtnH9mVsN3thfkE0CCQYPRE=XFUWWkQooQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANaguZDQZg-Z6aNpeLcjQ-cGm3X8CQOkZ_hnJNUyqDRM=yVDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bcd601e7-3f15-e340-bebe-a6ca3635dacb@linux.intel.com>
 <a55bb7a5-bb20-d3f3-e634-4dfda1ac6005@linux.intel.com>
 <67e46f79-51c2-5b69-71c6-133ec10b68c4@linux.intel.com>
 <20200305043330.GA8755@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain>
 <b386bd08-112d-df30-256c-dee85780abbc@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b386bd08-112d-df30-256c-dee85780abbc@linux.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 02:10:36PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2020/3/5 12:33, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 07:54:39AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >> On 2020/3/3 22:59, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >>> On 2020/2/29 7:55, Tim Chen wrote:
> > ...
> >>>> In Vinnet's fix, we only look at the currently running task's weight in
> >>>> src and dst rq.  Perhaps the load on the src and dst rq needs to be considered
> >>>> to prevent too great an imbalance between the run queues?
> >>>
> >>> We are trying to migrate a task, can we just use cfs.h_nr_running? This signal
> >>> is used to find the busiest run queue as well.
> >>
> >> How about this one? the cgroup weight issue seems fixed on my side.
> > 
> > It doesn't apply on top of your coresched_v4-v5.5.2 branch, so I
> > manually allied it. Not sure if I missed something.
> 
> Here is a rebase version on coresched_v5 Vineeth released this morning:
> https://github.com/aubreyli/linux/tree/coresched_V5-v5.5.y-rc1
> 
> > 
> > It's now getting 4 cpus in 2 cores. Better, but not back to normal yet..
> 
> I always saw higher weight tasks getting 8 cpus in 4 cores on my side.
> Are you still running 8+16 sysbench cpu threads? 

I used the wrong workload for high weight cgroup. After using sysbench
for high weight cgroup, I also see the problem fixed. Sorry for the noise.

P.S. I used redis-server as the high weight workload this morning, it has
some softirq processing and I guess that makes things not as expected.

Thanks,
Aaron

> 
> I replicated your setup, the cpuset with 8cores 16threads, cpu mode 8 sysbench
> threads with cpu.shares=10240, 16 sysbench threads with cpu.shares=2, and here
> is the data on my side.
> 
> 				weight(10240)		weight(2)
> coresched disabled		324.23(eps)		356.43(eps)
> coresched enabled		340.74(eps)		311.62(eps)
> 
> It seems higher weight tasks win this time and lower weight tasks have ~15%
> regression(not big deal?), did you see anything worse?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Aubrey