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:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 10:51:50 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc:     Libo Chen <libo.chen@oracle.com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
        peterz@infradead.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: no sync wakeup from interrupt context
Message-ID: <20220804095150.GG3493@suse.de>
References: <20220711224704.1672831-1-libo.chen@oracle.com>
 <c50bdbfe-02ce-c1bc-c761-c95f8e216ca0@amd.com>
 <YufUj4klPKmKNj26@gmail.com>
 <82620137-5aa5-6cf1-f7aa-6a298e2f7856@oracle.com>
 <Yuo9Y4KvQQvvLC/r@gmail.com>
 <a9d666ae-0aa4-d79e-aac2-02573577b530@oracle.com>
 <YuuJcFkUVUfDvcYB@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YuuJcFkUVUfDvcYB@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 10:55:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Libo Chen <libo.chen@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > Oh yes, I have no issue with holding the patch back until the regression 
> > is fully understood. I was just a little confused on your reference to 
> > Mel's comments. [...]
> 
> Yeah, that was just me getting confused about which change Mel was 
> referring to, as I was looking for external confirmation saying what I was 
> thinking about the patch: in_task()/in_interrupt() heuristics rarely do 
> well. ;-)
> 

Even though I was referring to something else, the reported regression
is still a regression.  Prateek's report and what I brought up in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220715100738.GD3493@suse.de/ are both simply
examples where changes to affine wakeup can have surprising results.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs