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 C2CF678C8B for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 20:18:52 +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=1722975535; cv=none; b=CQJ70t1tDinHWlPjQB5IRShAwIWr627n2uz5T+dNEnWNV1tpnzDSx9hfvPT5oCIBEiK+0qk/1wnHtr6QPHnGwdb9ksmTMjAdJIxTGirU9Eieoed9auWjVxEZtMvuRVpduDz1vn52qkDzpzEjNFbon5VCC46s2VKQdgTYuNMSLUU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722975535; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QILZWBSRP6Ol78dEz9h+B6v4FoCeJflsetn/bbi3Ljk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=rfoJ6z9ay9oCN09tbd92Qt5vbVOb9lIGDOHhMDhRpCP4GMxg4BUwNmg7+/E3+0Uphbu8QOKBh/cVoWVkQ7uZEWT5vCU3whr/nBGSFGz5h/aq+iSj+nJ8af6Q4IVkzoNuHT6xQgo4kWM5zhqo78G54zCVjawc5D6df2tJTqnikG0= 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=oxGIsqQb; 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="oxGIsqQb" 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=i/mTPKpbvCBoHOXmYTX8EkdXEovN5m1wPdieemPEOsw=; b=oxGIsqQbi12URvbDtjHVw4Zkq4 QcehRtpeGh2+t0QtYHIn1tR/x31crLyEyVh7VLnWWRnXFLPO3SrX0AQ0pDV7rGnt21w7B/omGUqii 3uu/aDbYu5pbZDaqx+FYGuOeY2HTpK43CXsjVQPjooHCEDgL2dMVPH39P8JCZO2r7ILCRIvwOeLBZ +lqsmoxVxsXB+UjgU7TSlh4c2tb9UcgIrqeCAzW5xn+3+jYGZlW9kUJ4DjESL5B7s2CBEpG9y7mBn nADLyCzobD7R3DdR+hDp3Dlr0S7XoQAKOUz+svyS0ItRrHzdf+tCCTcK6XYTZhVnRSc9tnTIOsUKa 0rNB5yhQ==; Received: from j130084.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.130.84] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sbQdr-00000006WQm-0Bsi; Tue, 06 Aug 2024 20:18:47 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8DC7230066A; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 22:18:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 22:18:45 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Tejun Heo Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Vernet , Ingo Molnar , Alexei Starovoitov , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] sched_ext: Initial pull request for v6.11 Message-ID: <20240806201845.GY37996@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20240723163358.GM26750@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20240724085221.GO26750@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-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 Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 09:56:36AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Peter. > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 10:52:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > ... > > So pick_task() came from the SCHED_CORE crud, which does a remote pick > > and as such isn't able to do a put -- remote is still running its > > current etc. > > > > So pick_task() *SHOULD* already be considering its current and pick > > that if it is a better candidate than whatever is on the queue. > > > > If we have a pick_task() that doesn't do that, it's a pre-existing bug > > and needs fixing anyhow. > > I haven't applied the patch to make balance_fair() test > sched_fair_runnable() instead of rq->nr_running yet but after that I think > all review points that you raised should be addressed except for the above > pick_task() conversion. If you want to go ahead with this change, please do > so. I'll pull in tip/sched/core and update accordingly. AFAICS, it doesn't > make any significant difference to SCX one way or the other and I think > updating shouldn't be too painful. OK. So my plan was to finish reading the for 6.11 pull diff, and then merge that eevdf patch-set I send out. Post those patches I had in sched/prep that re-arrange the put_prev thing. Then merge those, and then ask you to rebase the whole lot on top of that, after which I'll pull your branch. And while I'm behind my own schedule, I think we can still get all that sorted. Anyway, I'll go stick this patch somewhere so it don't get lost.