Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4

[Aubrey Li]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:34 PM Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 01:32:35PM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
> > Aaron - did you test this before? In other words, if you reset repo to your
> > last commit:
>
> I did this test only recently when I started to think if I can use
> coresched to boost main workload's performance in a colocated
> environment.
>
> >
> > - 5bd3c80 sched/fair : Wake up forced idle siblings if needed
> >
> > Does the problem remain? Just want to check if this is a regression
> >  introduced by the subsequent patchset.
>
> The problem isn't there with commit 5bd3c80 as the head, so yes, it
> looks like indeed a regression introduced by subsequent patchset.
>
> P.S. I will need to take a closer look if each cgA's task is running
> on a different core later but the cpu usage of cgA is back to 800% with
> commit 5bd3c80.

Hmm..., I went through the subsequent patches, and I think this one

- 4041eeb8f3 sched/fair: don't migrate task if cookie not match

is probably the major cause, can you please revert this one to see
if the problem is gone?

>From what I can tell, if 16 threads in cgB occupied 8 cores, this
patch prevents any thread in cgA from migrating when load balance
is triggered, and yes, cpu.shares is ignored at this point.

Thanks,
-Aubrey