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: 41+ 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 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
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).