From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>,
mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
maddy@linux.ibm.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
jstultz@google.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
huschle@linux.ibm.com, srikar@linux.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] sched: cpu parked and push current task mechanism
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 11:47:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aDXelhCbIvKjZyqG@yury> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250527151020.GV24938@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 05:10:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 11:44:43PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> > In a para-virtualised environment, there could be multiple
> > overcommitted VMs. i.e sum of virtual CPUs(vCPU) > physical CPU(pCPU).
> > When all such VMs request for cpu cycles at the same, it is not possible
> > to serve all of them. This leads to VM level preemptions and hence the
> > steal time.
> >
> > Bring the notion of CPU parked state which implies underlying pCPU may
> > not be available for use at this time. This means it is better to avoid
> > this vCPU. So when a CPU is marked as parked, one should vacate it as
> > soon as it can. So it is going to dynamic at runtime and can change
> > often.
>
> You've lost me here already. Why would pCPU not be available? Simply
> because it is running another vCPU? I would say this means the pCPU is
> available, its just doing something else.
>
> Not available to me means it is going offline or something like that.
>
> > In general, task level preemption(driven by VM) is less expensive than VM
> > level preemption(driven by hypervisor). So pack to less CPUs helps to
> > improve the overall workload throughput/latency.
>
> This seems to suggest you're 'parking' vCPUs, while above you seemed to
> suggest pCPU. More confusion.
>
> > cpu parking and need for cpu parking has been explained here as well [1]. Much
> > of the context explained in the cover letter there applies to this
> > problem context as well.
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250512115325.30022-1-huschle@linux.ibm.com/
>
> Yeah, totally not following any of that either :/
>
>
> Mostly I have only confusion and no idea what you're actually wanting to
> do.
My wild guess is that the idea is to not preempt the pCPU while running
a particular vCPU workload. But I agree, this should all be reworded and
explained better. I didn't understand this, either.
Thanks,
YUry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-27 15:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-23 18:14 [RFC PATCH 0/5] sched: cpu parked and push current task mechanism Shrikanth Hegde
2025-05-23 18:14 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] cpumask: Introduce cpu parked mask Shrikanth Hegde
2025-05-27 15:06 ` Yury Norov
2025-06-23 8:10 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-05-23 18:14 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] sched/core: Don't use parked cpu for selection Shrikanth Hegde
2025-05-27 14:59 ` Yury Norov
2025-05-27 17:35 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-05-23 18:14 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] sched/fair: Don't use parked cpu for load balancing Shrikanth Hegde
2025-05-23 18:14 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] sched/core: Push current task when cpu is parked Shrikanth Hegde
2025-05-24 7:39 ` kernel test robot
2025-05-24 15:45 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-05-23 18:14 ` [DEBUG PATCH 5/5] powerpc: Use manual hint for cpu parking Shrikanth Hegde
2025-05-27 15:10 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] sched: cpu parked and push current task mechanism Peter Zijlstra
2025-05-27 15:47 ` Yury Norov [this message]
2025-05-27 17:30 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-06-02 4:25 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2025-06-02 14:22 ` Tobias Huschle
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=aDXelhCbIvKjZyqG@yury \
--to=yury.norov@gmail.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=huschle@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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.