Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-157757-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240412192304.3201847-1-vineeth@bitbyteword.org> <99c1761a-9c00-4167-86e5-8a69cb6d9e5d@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <99c1761a-9c00-4167-86e5-8a69cb6d9e5d@redhat.com>
From: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 17:59:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAO7JXPhAHs63QhjCn6hr7ksKc+DP2Qv3vfaKsFtzsbGhe2tmHg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix dlserver duplicate start and stop
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 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>, 
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>, 
	Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, 
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>, 
	Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>, 
	Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> > dlserver should be started on an idle root cfs rq, when
> >  - enqueue on a non-throttled cfs_rq causing the root cfs rq to
> >    go non-idle, or
> >  - untthrottle results in the root cfs rq to go non-idle.
> >
> > Similarly dlserver should be stopped on a non-idle root cfs rq, when
> >  - dequeue on a non-throttled cfs_rq causing the root cfs rq to
> >    go idle, or
> >  - throttle results in the root cfs rq to go idle.
>
>
> seem to make sense, I will add this check on v7.
>
Thanks!

> Btw, as this is an ongoing thread discussion, instead of sending a patch, next time,
> please reply to the patchset... it is easier for everybody to keep track.
>
Sorry about this. Will reply to the patchset in the future.

Thanks,
Vineeth