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:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:29:33 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched, fair: try to prevent migration thread from
 preempting non-cfs task
Message-ID: <YMm2bWq9XfaPeSka@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210615121551.31138-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
 <20210615203534.GA4272@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CALOAHbBuZJaK+fEg7toRUHJNP8rJKDoADeAUxorUuNU17kdTOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YMmlAP/QhE6SWhCF@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKfTPtAh3eOtzZUPqmhkw6FAOjOietZrB_qMOfOprp0oWO+CvA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtAh3eOtzZUPqmhkw6FAOjOietZrB_qMOfOprp0oWO+CvA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 09:29:55AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 09:15, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> > The suggestion was adding a cfs_migration thread, specifically for
> > active balance (and maybe numa). Just not sure the cost of carrying yet
> > another per-cpu kernel thread is worth the benefit.
> 
> Also, this will not completely remove the problem but only further
> reduce the race window because the rq is locked and the irq disable in
> active_load_balance_cpu_stop().

It removes the problem of active migration interfering with this
worklaod, because the FIFO1 task will never run until that is done
(assuming he manages to not have his workload at FIFO1).