Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:27:45 -0400
From:   Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
To:     peterz@infradead.org
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, mingo@redhat.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
        Jirka Hladky <jhladky@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: Improve fairness between cfs tasks
Message-ID: <20200918172745.GI55398@lorien.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <20200914100340.17608-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20200914114202.GQ1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200918163928.GG55398@lorien.usersys.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200918163928.GG55398@lorien.usersys.redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:39:28PM -0400 Phil Auld wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 01:42:02PM +0200 peterz@infradead.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:03:36PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > Vincent Guittot (4):
> > >   sched/fair: relax constraint on task's load during load balance
> > >   sched/fair: reduce minimal imbalance threshold
> > >   sched/fair: minimize concurrent LBs between domain level
> > >   sched/fair: reduce busy load balance interval
> > 
> > I see nothing objectionable there, a little more testing can't hurt, but
> > I'm tempted to apply them.
> > 
> > Phil, Mel, any chance you can run them through your respective setups?
> > 
> 
> Sorry for the delay. Things have been backing up...
> 
> We tested with tis series and found there was no performance change in
> our test suites. (We don't have a good way to share the actual numbers
> outside right now, but since they aren't really different it probably
> doesn't matter much here.)
> 
> The difference we did see was a slight decrease in the number of tasks
> moved around at higher loads.  That seems to be a good thing even though
> it didn't directly show time-based performance benefits (and was pretty
> minor).
> 
> So if this helps other use cases we've got no problems with it.
>

Feel free to add a

Reviewed-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>

Jirka did the actual testing so he can speak up with a Tested-by if he
wants to.


> Thanks,
> Phil
> 
> -- 
> 

--