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;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 07:18:43 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc:     Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: async unthrottling for cfs bandwidth
Message-ID: <Y2Kmc1qiv7K9qpBh@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <Y2Bf+CeQ8x2jKQ3S@slm.duckdns.org>
 <CABk29Nvqv-T1JuAq2cf9=AwRu=y1+YOR4xS2qnVo6+XpWd2UNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2B6V1PPuCcTXGp6@slm.duckdns.org>
 <CABk29Ns1VWEVRYENud4CW3JQPrcr79i_F2PBTANqt3t-LaYCfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2FwVX42LIKXSTz3@slm.duckdns.org>
 <CABk29Nua8ZsDfhY+x+VfYDkbkjfXLXTZ5JMVR9uiBygraxDM+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2GUg8CiI68ZBznr@slm.duckdns.org>
 <CABk29Nvj8nRyD0HGo+gZ4CEr0kOJSsUbJnSNFs62D66EDTMGog@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2Gf3zxJqxRnkVyf@slm.duckdns.org>
 <20221102171049.GC10591@blackbody.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20221102171049.GC10591@blackbody.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 06:10:49PM +0100, Michal Koutn? wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 12:38:23PM -1000, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > We're in the process of transitioning to using bw instead for this
> > > instead in order to maintain parallelism. Fixing bw is definitely
> > > going to be useful, but I'm afraid we'll still likely have some issues
> > > from low throughput for non-bw reasons (some of which we can't
> > > directly control, since arbitrary jobs can spin up and configure their
> > > hierarchy/threads in antagonistic ways, in effect pushing out the
> > > latency of some of their threads).
> > 
> > Yeah, thanks for the explanation. Making the lock more granular is tedious
> > but definitely doable. I don't think I can work on it in the near future but
> > will keep it on mind. If anyone's interested in attacking it, please be my
> > guest.
> 
> From my experience, throttling while holding kernel locks (not just
> cgroup_mutex) causes more trouble than plain cgroup_mutex scalability
> currently.

Oh yeah, absolutely. Low cpu bw config + any shared kernel resource is a
nightmare and this thread was originally about addressing that.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun