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, 19 Jan 2022 09:59:54 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Peter Oskolkov <posk@google.com>
Cc:     Peter Oskolkov <posk@posk.io>, 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, avagin@google.com, jannh@google.com,
        tdelisle@uwaterloo.ca
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] sched: User Mode Concurency Groups
Message-ID: <YefTCk4to5YzO8AB@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20211214204445.665580974@infradead.org>
 <20211214205358.701701555@infradead.org>
 <20211221171900.GA580323@dev-hv>
 <YeGEM7TP3tekBVEh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YeaRx9oDp08ABvyU@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAPNVh5cdGiDqut90kUo-HXyya6Nbz_CjuUObYXfprgDhQHnUmg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPNVh5cdGiDqut90kUo-HXyya6Nbz_CjuUObYXfprgDhQHnUmg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 10:19:21AM -0800, Peter Oskolkov wrote:

> =========== signals and the general approach
> 
> My version of the patchset has all of these things working. What it
> does not have,
> compared to the new approach we are discussing here, is runqueues per server
> and proper signal handling (and potential integration with proxy execution).
> 
> Runqueues per server, in the LAZY mode, are easy to emulate in my patchset:
> nothing prevents the userspace to partition workers among servers, and have
> servers that "own" their workers to be pointed at by idle_server_tid_ptr.
> 
> The only thing that is missing is proper treating of signals. But my patchset
> does ensure a single running worker per server, had pagefaults and preemptions
> sorted out, etc. Basically, everything works except signals. This patchet
> has issues with pagefaults, 

Already fixed pagefaults per:

  YeGvovSckivQnKX8@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

> worker timeouts

I still have no clear answer as to what you actually want there.

> , worker-to-worker context
> switches (do workers move runqueues when they context switch?), etc.

Not in kernel, if they need to be migrated, userspace needs to do that.

> And my patchset now actually looks smaller and simpler, on the kernel side,
> that what this patchset is shaping up to be.
> 
> What if I fix signals in my patchset? I think the way you deal with signals
> will work in my approach equally well; I'll also use umcg_kick() to preempt
> workers instead of sending them a signal.
> 
> What do you think? 

I still absolutely hate how long you do page pinning, it *will* wreck
things like CMA which are somewhat latency critical for silly things
like Android camera apps and who knows what else.

You've also forgotten about this:

  YcWutpu7BDeG+dQ2@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

That's not optional given how you're using page-pinning. Also, I think
we need at least one direct access to the page after getting the pin in
order to make it work.

That also very much limits it to Anon pages.