Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 23 Nov 2017 11:00:07 -0500
From:   Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@oracle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@arm.com>,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] sched: Minimize the idle cpu selection race
 window.
Message-ID: <20171123160006.tik2loyzzlavf5ub@destiny>
References: <1509427662-25114-1-git-send-email-atish.patra@oracle.com>
 <1509427662-25114-2-git-send-email-atish.patra@oracle.com>
 <20171031082009.rxxa57goto6q5xld@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAJWu+ooYjFK3+cLnzKgmchOL_bwdYjvHkOL0de=SixVT_CLy=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <49e98b00-80c7-b3a4-30fd-bccb382d002b@oracle.com>
 <20171123105247.wcl2fiypge2pvile@pc636>
 <1511442781.6505.26.camel@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1511442781.6505.26.camel@gmx.de>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170714 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:13:01PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 11:52 +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > Hello, Atish, Peter, all.
> > 
> > I have a question about if a task's nr_cpus_allowed is 1.
> > In that scenario we do not call select_task_rq. Therefore
> > even thought a task "p" is placed on idle CPU that CPU
> > will not be marked as claimed for wake-up.
> > 
> > What do you think about adding per_cpu(claim_wakeup, cpu) = 1;
> > to select_task_rq() instead and possibly get rid of them from
> > other places (increases a race window a bit)?
> 
> My thoughts on all of this is that we need less SIS, not more. �Rather
> than trying so hard for the absolute lowest wakeup latency, which
> induces throughput/efficiency robbing bouncing, I think we'd be better
> of considering leaving an already llc affine task where it is if the
> average cycle time is sufficiently low that it will likely hit the CPU
> RSN. �Completely ignoring low utilization kernel threads would go a
> long way to getting rid of bouncing userspace (which tends to have a
> meaningful footprint), all over hell and creation.
> 
> You could also periodically send mobile kthreads down the slow path to
> try to keep them the hell away from partially busy CPUs, as well as
> anything else that hasn't run for a while, to keep background cruft
> from continually injecting itself into the middle of a cross core
> cyber-sex.
>

And on this thanksgiving I'm thankful for Mike, and his entertaining early
morning emails.

Josef 

From 1584862741249447957@xxx Thu Nov 23 13:14:51 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582749826108377580
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread