From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59D7F1CAA7C; Sat, 1 Feb 2025 18:11:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738433521; cv=none; b=pMgV8ZBrBg/ephq0K7oJl6BnnoOiQSa534SbZI/ujNZECkeutb34685pr8MAdHc3CuXYesnFSqVUbDFUTwFgpzlc2o1B9BJn74s1aT2R1X0RwTgPr0OTyoB1PeMbIwaV6y5Ko3XWF6o3zkAXgw/nrevg13jxaR7/+AqiEl2GoVg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738433521; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8WVjS1nKR1GWra/WMp/l4q+WpANRNgI0+C0UyHhV8wQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=rYEpL/Seb6bIuJTbt/C55zBw8lfeKTc4HjrOBFhFVN0xyID2yZpExj9NSC5wqhG+U0W0OQlh5kx/wHAku2sYICulTfri2BxF0qerYvgmyLvEs4Qx5gVC+3w8K4wqHoU4rtEQPT+03ZuPr0u7y6ZSPKjzIF8tS1IBFDxDcXXe4OM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=GkxBa9u1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="GkxBa9u1" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=LlN8fDEAhKUNZRsMj4/4ALQP9qC4Omt7rN7TUcf2ulk=; b=GkxBa9u1m4Eqw2KXdSpvkSQ+JZ 4XNmsUP5uhEN1ahspih1L6Th1k2fi9/2y3hkTHXyVIjsr2evfoYAnvUdZul+rQkDn8bMGyoN38Uoa X6JpfmbO+08gGHS4lzE16N8UL4DNA26FN6XTHFb0O0edNswuz2w42ipCGBozAiXVB76syUK+7oLUP flummX4f9D/V2IhuMvMxxnyOyPyqDsEf87FtmvhyS7Or6tfq/mN+llwF+n1YdxoZzcUq251ZbiFPS v0ysA7RI1RQsgYPoZWBqMcl7FYToKeOrCSVsr2W/r2wRkpfpwuI0KD8u0dpytC3QZqD+5HHlV7Ch+ MbjQi+PQ==; Received: from 77-249-17-89.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl ([77.249.17.89] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1teHxq-0000000FkEP-2zBU; Sat, 01 Feb 2025 18:11:31 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5E78330050D; Sat, 1 Feb 2025 19:11:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 19:11:29 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Steven Rostedt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ankur Arora , Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, luto@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, willy@infradead.org, mgorman@suse.de, jon.grimm@amd.com, bharata@amd.com, raghavendra.kt@amd.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, jgross@suse.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, Joel Fernandes , Vineeth Pillai , Suleiman Souhlal , Ingo Molnar , Mathieu Desnoyers , Clark Williams , bigeasy@linutronix.de, daniel.wagner@suse.com, joseph.salisbury@oracle.com, broonie@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] sched: Extended scheduler time slice Message-ID: <20250201181129.GA34937@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20250131225837.972218232@goodmis.org> <20250131225942.365475324@goodmis.org> <20250201115906.GB8256@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 07:47:32AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On February 1, 2025 6:59:06 AM EST, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > >I still have full hate for this approach. > > So what approach would you prefer? The one that does not rely on the preemption method -- I think I posted something along those line, and someone else recently reposted something bsaed on it. Tying things to the preemption method is absurdly bad design -- and I've told you that before.