Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3

[Vineeth Remanan Pillai]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:16 PM Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:41 AM Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/17/19 6:33 PM, Aubrey Li wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:14 PM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> And I have pushed Tim's branch to:
> > >> https://github.com/aaronlu/linux coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-tim
> > >>
> > >> Mine:
> > >> https://github.com/aaronlu/linux coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-core_vruntime
> >
> >
> > Aubrey,
> >
> > Thanks for testing with your set up.
> >
> > I think the test that's of interest is to see my load balancing added on top
> > of Aaron's fairness patch, instead of using my previous version of
> > forced idle approach in coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-tim branch.
> >
>
> I'm trying to figure out a way to solve fairness only(not include task
> placement),
> So @Vineeth - if everyone is okay with Aaron's fairness patch, maybe
> we should have a v4?
>
Yes, I think we can move to v4 with Aaron's fairness fix and potentially
Tim's load balancing fixes. I am working on some improvements to Aaron's
fixes and shall post the changes after some testing. Basically, what I am
trying to do is to propagate the min_vruntime change down to all the cf_rq
and individual se when we update the cfs_rq(rq->core)->min_vrutime. So,
we can make sure that the rq stays in sync and starvation do not happen.

If everything goes well, we shall also post the v4 towards the end of this
week. We would be testing Tim's load balancing patches in an
over-committed VM scenario to observe the effect of the fix.

Thanks,
Vineeth