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:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 10:37:50 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
        ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
        martin.lau@kernel.org, joshdon@google.com, brho@google.com,
        pjt@google.com, derkling@google.com, haoluo@google.com,
        dvernet@meta.com, dschatzberg@meta.com, dskarlat@cs.cmu.edu,
        riel@surriel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET RFC] sched: Implement BPF extensible scheduler class
Message-ID: <Y5b2btWFJeEfTyJg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20221130082313.3241517-1-tj@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221130082313.3241517-1-tj@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:22:42PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:

> Core scheduling is an example of a feature that took a significant amount of
> time and effort to integrate into the kernel.

Mostly because I dropped it on the floor once I heard about MDS. That
made me lose interest entirely. The only reason it eventually happened
was ChromeOS (Joel) pushing for it again.

> Part of the difficulty with core
> scheduling was the inherent mismatch in abstraction between the desire to
> perform core-wide scheduling, and the per-cpu design of the kernel scheduler.

Not really; the main difficultly was due to me wanting to do it outside
of the scheduling classes so that it fundamentally covers all of them.

Doing it inside a class (say CFS) would've made it significantly simpler.

> This caused issues, for example ensuring proper fairness between the
> independent runqueues of SMT siblings.

Inter-runqueue fairness is a known issue of CFS and quite independent of
core scheduling.


Anyway, I hate all of this. Linus NAK'ed loadable schedulers a number of
times in the past and this is just that again -- with the extra downside
of the whole BPF thing on top  :/

You look to be exposing a ton of stuff I've so far even refused
tracepoints for :-(

Anyway, I'm just back from a heavy dose of Covid and still taking it
easy, but I'll go read through the whole thing, hopefully I'll finish
before vanishing again for the x-mas break.