Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4
From: Tim Chen
Date: Fri Jan 10 2020 - 18:19:41 EST
On 1/1/20 6:28 PM, Aubrey Li wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:45 AM Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2019-11-01 at 10:03 -0400, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
>>> Hi Phil,
>>>
>>>> Unless I'm mistaken 7 of the first 8 of these went into sched/core
>>>> and are now in linux (from v5.4-rc1). It may make sense to rebase
>>>> on
>>>> that and simplify the series.
>>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for pointing this out. We shall test on a rebased 5.4 RC
>>> and post the changes soon, if the tests goes well. For v3, while
>>> rebasing
>>> to an RC kernel, we saw perf regressions and hence did not check the
>>> RC kernel this time. You are absolutely right that we can simplify
>>> the
>>> patch series with 5.4 RC.
>>>
>> And, in case it's useful to anybody, here's a rebase of this series on
>> top of 5.4-rc7:
>>
>> https://github.com/dfaggioli/linux/tree/wip/sched/v5.4-rc7-coresched
>>
>
> In case it's useful to anyone, I rebased the series on top of v5.5-rc4.
> https://github.com/aubreyli/linux/tree/coresched_v4-v5.5-rc4
>
> v5.5 includes a few scheduler rework and fix, so I modified patch1/2/6,
> patch-0002 has relatively big changes, but still has no functionality
> and logic change.
>
> 0001-sched-Wrap-rq-lock-access.patch
> 0002-sched-Introduce-sched_class-pick_task.patch
> 0003-sched-Core-wide-rq-lock.patch
> 0004-sched-Basic-tracking-of-matching-tasks.patch
> 0005-sched-A-quick-and-dirty-cgroup-tagging-interface.patch
> 0006-sched-Add-core-wide-task-selection-and-scheduling.patch
> 0007-sched-fair-Add-a-few-assertions.patch
> 0008-sched-Trivial-forced-newidle-balancer.patch
> 0009-sched-Debug-bits.patch
> 0010-sched-fair-wrapper-for-cfs_rq-min_vruntime.patch
> 0011-sched-fair-core-wide-vruntime-comparison.patch
> 0012-sched-fair-Wake-up-forced-idle-siblings-if-needed.patch
>
> I verified by my test suites, it seems to work.
>
Peter,
What do you see are the next steps to move the core scheduling
functionalities forward?
We'll like to find out what you see are the gaps that needed to be filled
to get this patchset be considered for mainline.
Thanks.
Tim