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, 14 Jan 2022 16:16:53 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Peter Oskolkov <posk@posk.io>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        pjt@google.com, posk@google.com, avagin@google.com,
        jannh@google.com, tdelisle@uwaterloo.ca
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] sched: User Mode Concurency Groups
Message-ID: <YeGT5dvA8KFeW+69@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20211214204445.665580974@infradead.org>
 <20211214205358.701701555@infradead.org>
 <20211221171900.GA580323@dev-hv>
 <YeGEM7TP3tekBVEh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YeGEM7TP3tekBVEh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 03:09:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > I think the assumption is based on the idea that a process
> > using UMCG will get affined to N CPUs, will have N servers and
> > a number of workers, and they will all happily cooperate and not
> > get any extra threads running.
> > 
> > Of course the pretty picture was not completely true, as the unblocked
> > tasks do consume extra threads in the kernel, though never in the
> > userspace.
> 
> Right, there is some unmanaged time anyway.

Also, since we force wake to the same CPU, and overlapping runtime is
'short', they should all stick to the same CPU, even if we don't pin.