From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752707AbdK3Ma4 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 30 Nov 2017 07:30:56 -0500
Received: from mail-lf0-f67.google.com ([209.85.215.67]:33595 "EHLO
        mail-lf0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750953AbdK3May (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 30 Nov 2017 07:30:54 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYR5ALHz235Vaq4hNYSYh9G4m17wD/ti338kIAVZ9deitnUj3MXJ+nZeWV64CDJl7lq7Di3PQ==
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@pc636>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:30:42 +0100
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@oracle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@arm.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] sched: Minimize the idle cpu selection race
 window.
Message-ID: <20171130123042.2bixycdkvuyvsyqw@pc636>
References: <CAJWu+ooYjFK3+cLnzKgmchOL_bwdYjvHkOL0de=SixVT_CLy=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <49e98b00-80c7-b3a4-30fd-bccb382d002b@oracle.com>
 <20171123105247.wcl2fiypge2pvile@pc636>
 <1511442781.6505.26.camel@gmx.de>
 <20171124102636.zqqjqa3sru7ebh4k@pc636>
 <1511549190.8029.233.camel@gmx.de>
 <20171128093422.5hmrkonj3z6twy2y@pc636>
 <1511866151.8472.51.camel@gmx.de>
 <20171129104147.dcc25xv64o4bwdyv@pc636>
 <1511979321.8321.141.camel@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1511979321.8321.141.camel@gmx.de>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 07:15:21PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 11:41 +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:49:11AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 10:34 +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 07:46:30PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > My view is you're barking up the wrong tree: you're making the idle
> > > > > data SIS is using more accurate, but I question the benefit.  That it
> > > > > makes an imperfect placement decision occasionally due to raciness is
> > > > > nearly meaningless compared to the cost of frequent bounce.
> > > 
> > > > Before sitting down and start testing, i just illustrated how we can
> > > > apply claim_wake_up to ilb asking community a specific view on it:
> > > > drawbacks, pros/cons, proposals etc.
> > > 
> > > Even if you make the thing atomic, what is ILB supposed to do, look
> > > over its shoulder every step of the way and sh*t it's pants if somebody
> > > touches claim_wake_up as it's about to or just after it did something?
> > If nohz.idle_cpus_mask is set for particular CPU together with claim mask,
> > it means that TIF_NEED_RESCHED is coming or is already in place. When a
> > CPU hits idle_thread a claim bit gets reset and proceed to no_hz mode
> > unless it runs into scheduler_ipi or so.

> 
> Which means nothing to an LB operation in progress.
> 
<snip>
static void nohz_idle_balance(...)
...
    /*
     * If this cpu gets work to do, stop the load balancing
     * work being done for other cpus. Next load
     * balancing owner will pick it up.
     */
    if (need_resched())
        break;
...
<snip>

>
> But whatever, I'm not going to argue endlessly about something I think
> should be blatantly obvious.  IMO, this is a couple points shy of
> pointless.  That's my 'C' to this RFC in a nutshell.  I'm done.
> 
Thank you.

Vlad