Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-167416-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 10:52:32 +0200
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,
	changwoo@igalia.com, himadrics@inria.fr, memxor@gmail.com,
	andrea.righi@canonical.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v6] sched: Implement BPF extensible scheduler class
Message-ID: <20240503085232.GC30852@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20240501151312.635565-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20240502084800.GY30852@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ZjPnb1vdt80FrksA@slm.duckdns.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZjPnb1vdt80FrksA@slm.duckdns.org>

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 09:20:15AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Peter.
> 
> On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 10:48:00AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Can you please put your efforts and the touted Google collaboration in
> > fixing the existing cgroup mess?
> 
> I suppose you're referring to Rik's flattened hierarchy patchset.
> 
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190822021740.15554-1-riel@surriel.com
> 
> Rik spent a lot of time and energy on it and IIRC one of the reasons why it
> didn't get pushed further was the lack of any enthusiasm or support from the
> upstream community.
> 
> We can resurrect the discussion on that patchset but how is that connected
> to sched_ext? 

I'm absolutely not taking any of this until at the very least the cgroup
situation that's been created is solved. And even then, I fundamentally
believe the approach to be detrimental to the scheduler eco-system.
Witness the metric ton of toy schedulers written for it, that's all
effort not put into improving the existing code.

You guys Google/Facebook got us the cgroup thing, Google did a lot of
the work for cpu-cgroup, and now you Facebook say you can't live with it
because it's too expensive. Yes Rik did put a lot of effort into it, but
Google shot it down. What am I to do?

You Google/Facebook are touting collaboration, collaborate on fixing it.
Instead of re-posting this over and over. After all, your main
motivation for starting this was the cpu-cgroup overhead.

From where I'm sitting, you created a problem (cpu-cgroup) and now
you're creating an even bigger problem as a work-around. Very much not
appreciated.