From: "Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" <chleroy@kernel.org>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
yury.norov@gmail.com, maddy@linux.ibm.com, srikar@linux.ibm.com,
pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
vschneid@redhat.com, iii@linux.ibm.com, huschle@linux.ibm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] Paravirt CPUs and push task for less vCPU preemption
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:48:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0f53d5b8-dbb7-4265-940a-2f2be3d0154d@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4b83b443-baa8-4218-8412-ddfb0dda8ac3@linux.ibm.com>
Hi Shrikanth,
Le 25/11/2025 à 03:39, Shrikanth Hegde a écrit :
> Hi Greg.
>
> On 11/24/25 10:35 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 06:14:32PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>>> Detailed problem statement and some of the implementation choices were
>>> discussed earlier[1].
>>>
>>> [1]: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
>>> url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Fall%2F20250910174210.1969750-1-
>>> sshegde%40linux.ibm.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7Cc7e5a5830fcb4c796d4808de2bcbe09d%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C638996351808032890%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cV8RTPdV3So1GwQ9uVYgUuGxSfxutSezpaNBq6RYn%2FI%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> This is likely the version which would be used for LPC2025 discussion on
>>> this topic. Feel free to provide your suggestion and hoping for a
>>> solution
>>> that works for different architectures and it's use cases.
>>>
>>> All the existing alternatives such as cpu hotplug, creating isolated
>>> partitions etc break the user affinity. Since number of CPUs to use
>>> change
>>> depending on the steal time, it is not driven by User. Hence it would be
>>> wrong to break the affinity. This series allows if the task is pinned
>>> only paravirt CPUs, it will continue running there.
>>>
>>> Changes compared v3[1]:
>>
>> There is no "v" for this series :(
>>
>
> I thought about adding v1.
>
> I made it as PATCH from RFC PATCH since functionally it should
> be complete now with arch bits. Since it is v1, I remember usually
> people send out without adding v1. after v1 had tags such as v2.
>
> I will keep v2 for the next series.
>
But you are listing changes compared to v3, how can it be a v1 ?
Shouldn't it be a v4 ? Or in reality a v5 as you already sent a v4 here [1].
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251119062100.1112520-1-sshegde@linux.ibm.com/
Christophe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-25 7:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-19 12:44 [PATCH 00/17] Paravirt CPUs and push task for less vCPU preemption Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 01/17] sched/docs: Document cpu_paravirt_mask and Paravirt CPU concept Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 21:48 ` Hillf Danton
2025-11-20 14:54 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-20 22:56 ` Hillf Danton
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 02/17] cpumask: Introduce cpu_paravirt_mask Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 03/17] sched/core: Dont allow to use CPU marked as paravirt Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 04/17] sched/debug: Remove unused schedstats Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 05/17] sched/fair: Add paravirt movements for proc sched file Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 06/17] sched/fair: Pass current cpu in select_idle_sibling Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 07/17] sched/fair: Don't consider paravirt CPUs for wakeup and load balance Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 08/17] sched/rt: Don't select paravirt CPU for wakeup and push/pull rt task Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 09/17] sched/core: Add support for nohz_full CPUs Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-21 3:16 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-11-21 4:40 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-24 4:36 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 10/17] sched/core: Push current task from paravirt CPU Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 11/17] sysfs: Add paravirt CPU file Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 12/17] powerpc: method to initialize ec and vp cores Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-21 8:29 ` kernel test robot
2025-11-21 10:14 ` kernel test robot
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 13/17] powerpc: enable/disable paravirt CPUs based on steal time Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 14/17] powerpc: process steal values at fixed intervals Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 15/17] powerpc: add debugfs file for controlling handling on steal values Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 16/17] sysfs: Provide write method for paravirt Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-24 17:04 ` Greg KH
2025-11-24 17:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-11-25 2:49 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-25 15:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-11-25 16:02 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2025-11-25 16:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-11-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 17/17] sysfs: disable arch handling if paravirt file being written Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-24 17:05 ` [PATCH 00/17] Paravirt CPUs and push task for less vCPU preemption Greg KH
2025-11-25 2:39 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-25 7:48 ` Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) [this message]
2025-11-25 8:48 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-11-27 10:44 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-12-04 13:28 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2025-12-05 5:30 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-12-15 17:39 ` Yury Norov
2025-12-18 5:22 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-12-08 4:47 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-12-08 9:57 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-12-08 17:58 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-03-26 6:11 ` Shrikanth Hegde
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0f53d5b8-dbb7-4265-940a-2f2be3d0154d@kernel.org \
--to=chleroy@kernel.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=huschle@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=iii@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.