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, 6 Mar 2020 13:33:40 -0500
From:   Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.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>,
        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: <20200306183340.GC23145@pauld.bos.csb>
References: <29d43466-1e18-6b42-d4d0-20ccde20ff07@linux.intel.com>
 <CAERHkruG4y8si9FrBp7cZNEdfP7EzxbmYwvdF2EvHLf=mU1mgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200225034438.GA617271@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain>
 <CANaguZD205ccu1V_2W-QuMRrJA9SjJ5ng1do4NCdLy8NDKKrbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200227020432.GA628749@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain>
 <20200227141032.GA30178@pauld.bos.csb>
 <20200228025405.GA634650@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain>
 <CAERHkrunq=BqB=NmS2b_BfjePX2+nNpbv1EfTWw5rExbvYHyJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200306024116.GA16400@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain>
 <98719a4e-f620-dc8c-f29f-fd63c43e1597@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <98719a4e-f620-dc8c-f29f-fd63c43e1597@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 10:06:16AM -0800 Tim Chen wrote:
> On 3/5/20 6:41 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> 
> >>> So this appeared to me like a question of: is it desirable to protect/enhance
> >>> high weight task performance in the presence of core scheduling?
> >>
> >> This sounds to me a policy VS mechanism question. Do you have any idea
> >> how to spread high weight task among the cores with coresched enabled?
> > 
> > Yes I would like to get us on the same page of the expected behaviour
> > before jumping to the implementation details. As for how to achieve
> > that: I'm thinking about to make core wide load balanced and then high
> > weight task shall spread on different cores. This isn't just about load
> > balance, the initial task placement will also need to be considered of
> > course if the high weight task only runs a small period.
> > 
> 
> I am wondering why this is not happening:  
> 
> When the low weight task group has exceeded its cfs allocation during a cfs period, the task group
> should be throttled.  In that case, the CPU cores that the low
> weight task group occupies will become idle, and allow load balance from the
> overloaded CPUs for the high weight task group to migrate over.  
> 

cpu.shares is not quota. I think it will only get throttled if it has and 
exceeds quota.  Shares are supposed to be used to help weight contention
without providing a hard limit. 


Cheers,
Phil


> Tim
> 

--