Re: [PATCH v3 00/21] Cache Aware Scheduling

[Qais Yousef]

On 02/19/26 13:47, Tim Chen wrote:

> > > > I know this changes the direction being made here; but I strongly believe the
> > > > right way is to extend wake up path rather than lump it solely in LB (IIUC).
> > > 
> > > You're really going to need both, and LB really is the more complicated
> > > part. On a busy/loaded system, LB will completely wreck things for you
> > > if it doesn't play ball.
> > 
> > Yes I wasn't advocating for wake up both only of course. But I didn't read all
> > the details but I saw no wake up done.
> > 
> > And generally as I think I have been indicating here and there; we do need to
> > unify the wakeup and LB decision tree. With push lb this unification become
> > a piece of cake if the wakeup path already handles the case. The current LB
> > is a big beast. And will be slow to react for many systems.
> 
> I think as long as we have up to date information on load at the time of push
> in push lb, so we don't cause over aggregation and too much load imbalance,
> it will be viable to make such aggregation at wake up.

IMHO I see people are constantly tripping over task placement being too simple
and need smarter decision making process. I think Vincent's proposal is spot on
to help us handle all these situations simply with the added bonus of it being
a lot more reactive. Going down this rabbit hole is worthwhile and will benefit
us in the long run to handle more cases.