Hi Vineeth, On 2020/6/26 4:12, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:00 PM vpillai <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Fifth iteration of the Core-Scheduling feature. >> > Its probably time for an iteration and We are planning to post v6 based > on this branch: > https://github.com/digitalocean/linux-coresched/tree/coresched/pre-v6-v5.7.y > > Just wanted to share the details about v6 here before posting the patch > series. If there is no objection to the following, we shall be posting > the v6 early next week. > > The main changes from v6 are the following: > 1. Address Peter's comments in v5 > - Code cleanup > - Remove fixes related to hotplugging. > - Split the patch out for force idling starvation > 3. Fix for RCU deadlock > 4. core wide priority comparison minor re-work. > 5. IRQ Pause patch > 6. Documentation > - > https://github.com/digitalocean/linux-coresched/blob/coresched/pre-v6-v5.7.y/Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/core-scheduling.rst > > This version is much leaner compared to v5 due to the removal of hotplug > support. As a result, dynamic coresched enable/disable on cpus due to > smt on/off on the core do not function anymore. I tried to reproduce the > crashes during hotplug, but could not reproduce reliably. The plan is to > try to reproduce the crashes with v6, and document each corner case for > crashes > as we fix those. Previously, we randomly fixed the issues without a clear > documentation and the fixes became complex over time. > > TODO lists: > > - Interface discussions could not come to a conclusion in v5 and hence would > like to restart the discussion and reach a consensus on it. > - > https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/[email protected] > > - Core wide vruntime calculation needs rework: > - > https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/[email protected] > > - Load balancing/migration changes ignores group weights: > - > https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/[email protected]
According to Aaron's response below: https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/[email protected]/ The following logic seems to be helpful for Aaron's case. + /* + * Ignore cookie match if there is a big imbalance between the src rq + * and dst rq. + */ + if ((src_rq->cfs.h_nr_running - rq->cfs.h_nr_running) > 1) + return true; I didn't see any other comments on the patch at here: https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/[email protected]/ Do we have another way to address this issue? Thanks, -Aubrey
