Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 9 Apr 2022 19:10:36 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, parth@linux.ibm.com,
        chris.hyser@oracle.com, pkondeti@codeaurora.org,
        Valentin.Schneider@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
        David.Laight@aculab.com, pjt@google.com, pavel@ucw.cz,
        tj@kernel.org, qperret@google.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add latency_nice priority
Message-ID: <20220409181036.v4mm3q2rotctbxb3@wubuntu>
References: <20220311161406.23497-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <7a7e1e21-df3d-4623-d9cd-51f5272919d5@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtC36OLqrQ57bnGDi93N+3Ozk5cX-+KHHTWHkwCGp=z4gA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220401121525.flngciwjtkn3mwlv@airbuntu>
 <CAKfTPtD7YntSV+fJkdwZxX0iO52hL0SxZ9G5hZTBSyZf6hMYRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220409170841.upcimeak2ch3aj35@wubuntu>
 <20220409132829.16b03d69@rorschach.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220409132829.16b03d69@rorschach.local.home>
Precedence: bulk

On 04/09/22 13:28, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 18:08:41 +0100
> Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> > One other corner case to consider if you're working on next version is what
> > should happen when there are multiple tasks of the same priority on the rq. RT
> > scheduler will push/pull tasks to ensure the task will get to run ASAP if
> > there's another cpu at lower priority is available. Seems a lot of complexity
> > to add to CFS, but at the same time if 2 important tasks require low latency
> > are on the same rq, one of them will suffer without introducing the ability to
> > migrate one of them where it can get to run sooner.
> 
> Instead of having the greedy algorithm of the RT push/pull logic, how
> hard would it be to have the load balancer know of these tasks, and try
> to keep them on different CPUs? When two are queued on the same CPU,

Oh yeah I didn't think we need to replicate push/pull. Load balancer will need
to know about it when it moves task so that it avoids placing two of these asks
on the same cpu.

> could it be possible to just trigger load balancing and let it do the
> work?

I think the other part will need to be at wake up when we decide the CPU.

If we trigger the load balancing instead then it'd behave like a push/pull?

All these paths are already complex though. So we need to carefully analyze the
trade-offs. Maybe we don't need to deliver such level of service after all. It
needs more thinking and experimenting.

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef