From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f201.google.com (mail-pg1-f201.google.com [209.85.215.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A8DE2ECD33 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 18:46:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761158777; cv=none; b=hooKowVNGyAO4SEkMvozWiq/OcTYCS4xBLZckgq/x87JKtTNDHO8eZLZ2mtIPpRSoHNmGVmdvAcBl74Cok8HXU3KL1mMHKWceJf9+AAui64w6TrISGDui2MUBeqQaETfzzNpxgvzN1fKvZzsSBmcpL0JHRcdHnS5ByYPwUMgppY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761158777; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5EpN3tBp41Rek+sTZqlNQydypqmiRlkRRwpgl3gWh1M=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=G49smPsIr5otmmcud+J+xTroIzs3YKvrZ27ORhaJ0YrO/JmHfuSLJah8zx2K0IbBc+OPZTVbTwA62lYokmEPUXU50NF/Cjjm4xqJAz+j0eJN+0ZbqIVwizrdffYB/4pWkWP0qGxrvT7KZlVH7FyA/8b8N2jomVUVTz2UNkL0dhQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=q7BXlNau; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="q7BXlNau" Received: by mail-pg1-f201.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-b6cf1b799dcso194320a12.2 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:46:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1761158776; x=1761763576; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Y5LU3IumH/ybekjL605GOzLVsbqQp3MsudwytfNYQFY=; b=q7BXlNauDNA1IANRrj9R9SWi1tV9yrFXaDWtP/iRVVUBfn0Hy9bMMI4SETNYXQpKO5 hkw2GhJpERFAzoJxrnXhZ7bhdaknaWwuHdxs8RMk2WB6daYEFhWqNx7IHzv+/2zSnN2S OUJ0Z+hem0wB1UjUfmXaID5CV5d93HsrdL0Oh+WhMjLTLHkqr6koccDoHGMEEoEBcmR1 46/4sSjn3cspEXTZArWdXurLqvi5P5WDAnL/Gj5ator7GBuwY/6xVgRhwjTjGdp5giCm UFazpns9cqVzHVK65z5zigNWzK5RDyY0bhLOIvJGvJtKzlgp4N1MMptbqbEADc5kqrYW o/Pg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1761158776; x=1761763576; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Y5LU3IumH/ybekjL605GOzLVsbqQp3MsudwytfNYQFY=; b=l+i6/iAQna7yhUw+sxF8VnijpLEgT7WewQfuxA5+sP33RS7rxfnV9YduMJRIsiT7kG Jc9jPkpDsFO+T15FlCJZveHjwtWrkP9uqJuBjxX5m+fNRaMmXs3VacI7y0GdM7FTFuxU PdASbbLAm850eF0c6FGQIx1b8Q+OHbLoudyaKm1VvPrHctsCIkzfhdvDCu7eNtH1tYJ0 50HtzPT5ZznlxqoXDLwrzTqq1NoX27ngTgu1+7NLMbT7fp5eLbfsmH7Pe5HnrKMk8viO 4tYmX3bGPyKHJE5Fe58txyDfPL0qsPXkYiAkmyHkoVbedhBq56XtYlQneaFH0+Xh7gP6 iK7Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWoqBVuWtY2RT0F5+oKQv2MYJbHcBIsZg5WO3qGyntADk4mGIQVVogjn/E2uShuDJLLuPkSAiOWcXM9xzU=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz5mQtdv5+/A1BvgWdK3ww4A0PXvE/00I/3RnbLPbKEYIXUyyvI SsvwkN+LOKGdjqlBgWGp3HcyEXmBR5SFYEAu+s4GTOGiXIB63qsTaZ0F0ICzYijTVM4gELxfqV5 n2eVbjw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGZcCmPNTyYelUhOZ+RcEbayx11WFQSaVwU+Yrmb47JNxNNavWgCeScqZcEPGI7kg/CaUjf/Kp5mDE= X-Received: from pjdq23.prod.google.com ([2002:a17:90a:2e17:b0:33d:9628:960e]) (user=seanjc job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a17:90b:52d0:b0:332:1edf:a694 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-33bcf8fbbd3mr23327257a91.31.1761158775693; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:46:14 -0700 In-Reply-To: <48d66446-40be-4a4e-a5af-c19e0b8d9182@linux.ibm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20250910174210.1969750-1-sshegde@linux.ibm.com> <48d66446-40be-4a4e-a5af-c19e0b8d9182@linux.ibm.com> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/10] paravirt CPUs and push task for less vCPU preemption From: Sean Christopherson To: Shrikanth Hegde Cc: 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, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, vschneid@redhat.com, iii@linux.ibm.com, huschle@linux.ibm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, vineeth@bitbyteword.org, jgross@suse.com, pbonzini@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tue, Oct 21, 2025, Shrikanth Hegde wrote: > > Hi Sean. > Thanks for taking time and going through the series. > > On 10/20/25 8:02 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2025, Shrikanth Hegde wrote: > > > tl;dr > > > > > > This is follow up of [1] with few fixes and addressing review comments. > > > Upgraded it to RFC PATCH from RFC. > > > Please review. > > > > > > [1]: v2 - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250625191108.1646208-1-sshegde@linux.ibm.com/ > > > > > > v2 -> v3: > > > - Renamed to paravirt CPUs > > > > There are myriad uses of "paravirt" throughout Linux and related environments, > > and none of them mean "oversubscribed" or "contended". I assume Hillf's comments > > triggered the rename from "avoid CPUs", but IMO "avoid" is at least somewhat > > accurate; "paravirt" is wildly misleading. > > Name has been tricky. We want to have a positive sounding name while > conveying that these CPUs are not be used for now due to contention, > they may be used again when the contention has gone. I suspect part of the problem with naming is the all-or-nothing approach itself. There's a _lot_ of policy baked into that seemingly simple decision, and thus it's hard to describe with a human-friendly name. > > > Open issues: > > > > > > - Derivation of hint from steal time is still a challenge. Some work is > > > underway to address it. > > > > > > - Consider kvm and other hypervsiors and how they could derive the hint. > > > Need inputs from community. > > > > Bluntly, this series is never going to land, at least not in a form that's remotely > > close to what is proposed here. This is an incredibly simplistic way of handling > > overcommit, and AFAICT there's no line of sight to supporting more complex scenarios. > > > > Could you describe these complex scenarios? Any setup where "don't use this CPU" isn't a viable option, e.g. because all cores could be overcommitted at any given time, or is far, far too coarse-grained. Very few use cases can distill vCPU scheduling needs and policies into single flag. E.g. if all CPUs in a system are being used to vCPU tasks, all vCPUs are actively running, and the host has a non-vCPU task that _must_ run, then the host will need to preempt a vCPU task. Ideally, a paravirtualized scheduling system would allow the host to make an informed decision when choosing which vCPU to preempt, e.g. to minimize disruption to the guest(s).