Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

2020-06-30 Thread Phil Auld
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:10:28AM -0400 Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:36:01AM -0400, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:47 PM Joel Fernandes > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:12 PM Vineeth Remanan Pillai > > > wrote: > > > [...] > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

2020-06-29 Thread Li, Aubrey
Hi Vineeth, On 2020/6/26 4:12, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:00 PM vpillai wrote: >> >> >> Fifth iteration of the Core-Scheduling feature. >> > Its probably time for an iteration and We are planning to post v6 based > on this branch: > https://github.com/digitalocean/

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

2020-06-29 Thread Vineeth Remanan Pillai
Hi Aubrey, On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:34 AM Li, Aubrey wrote: > > > - Load balancing/migration changes ignores group weights: > >- > > https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/20200225034438.GA617271@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain > > According to Aaron's response below: > https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kern

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

2020-06-27 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:10 AM Joel Fernandes wrote: > [..] > > What do you think about having a separate cgroup for coresched? > > Both coresched cgroup and prctl() could co-exist where prctl could > > be used to isolate individual process or task and coresched cgroup > > to group trusted proce

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

2020-06-26 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:10:28AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:36:01AM -0400, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:47 PM Joel Fernandes > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:12 PM Vineeth Remanan Pillai > > > wrote: > > > [...] > >

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

2020-06-26 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:36:01AM -0400, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:47 PM Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:12 PM Vineeth Remanan Pillai > > wrote: > > [...] > > > TODO lists: > > > > > > - Interface discussions could not come to a conclusion

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

2020-06-26 Thread Vineeth Remanan Pillai
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:47 PM Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:12 PM Vineeth Remanan Pillai > wrote: > [...] > > TODO lists: > > > > - Interface discussions could not come to a conclusion in v5 and hence > > would > >like to restart the discussion and reach a consensus

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

2020-06-25 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:12 PM Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote: [...] > TODO lists: > > - Interface discussions could not come to a conclusion in v5 and hence would >like to restart the discussion and reach a consensus on it. >- > https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/20200520222642.70679-1-j...

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

2020-06-25 Thread Vineeth Remanan Pillai
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:00 PM vpillai wrote: > > > Fifth iteration of the Core-Scheduling feature. > Its probably time for an iteration and We are planning to post v6 based on this branch: https://github.com/digitalocean/linux-coresched/tree/coresched/pre-v6-v5.7.y Just wanted to share the det

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

2020-05-09 Thread Dario Faggioli
On Tue, 2020-04-14 at 16:21 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:59:50PM +, vpillai wrote: > > > > - Investigate the source of the overhead even when no tasks are > > tagged: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/29/242 > > - explain why we're all still doing this >

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

2020-05-08 Thread Ning, Hongyu
- Test environment: Intel Xeon Server platform CPU(s): 192 On-line CPU(s) list: 0-191 Thread(s) per core: 2 Core(s) per socket: 48 Socket(s): 2 NUMA node(s):4 - Kernel under test: Core scheduling v5 base https://github.com/digitalocean/linux-coresched/tree/cores