From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C61DC43466 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:29:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A616D21707 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:29:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="H5iHbS6R" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726498AbgIRR3U (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:29:20 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:41368 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726454AbgIRR3D (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:29:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1600450141; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Z/9npi5Fcll908WPlmB0OPngkHkpNIVEY0DiOg3OylY=; b=H5iHbS6RPpdJ1A8UY/Zo8mEbnvBoscUSS3+VO8W8djN8eCc7NDqqrKs33x+OvnRpdwEwbB JELNNM1iooSw5j8+uheCh3Oqk8nBPkk0bCT8jw2ssKgUc0UGZvrCPIKmZhghEnOfCdU1+T VnoVNVV4h5M+zgYrcpj41U32MvtpqDA= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-348-YkdcG9ISNDKUa8I7lMjTmw-1; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:27:54 -0400 X-MC-Unique: YkdcG9ISNDKUa8I7lMjTmw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0C118064BA; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:27:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lorien.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-113-62.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.62]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73C321C4; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:27:45 -0400 From: Phil Auld To: peterz@infradead.org Cc: Vincent Guittot , mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, valentin.schneider@arm.com, Jirka Hladky Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: Improve fairness between cfs tasks Message-ID: <20200918172745.GI55398@lorien.usersys.redhat.com> References: <20200914100340.17608-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20200914114202.GQ1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200918163928.GG55398@lorien.usersys.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200918163928.GG55398@lorien.usersys.redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:39:28PM -0400 Phil Auld wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 01:42:02PM +0200 peterz@infradead.org wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:03:36PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > Vincent Guittot (4): > > > sched/fair: relax constraint on task's load during load balance > > > sched/fair: reduce minimal imbalance threshold > > > sched/fair: minimize concurrent LBs between domain level > > > sched/fair: reduce busy load balance interval > > > > I see nothing objectionable there, a little more testing can't hurt, but > > I'm tempted to apply them. > > > > Phil, Mel, any chance you can run them through your respective setups? > > > > Sorry for the delay. Things have been backing up... > > We tested with tis series and found there was no performance change in > our test suites. (We don't have a good way to share the actual numbers > outside right now, but since they aren't really different it probably > doesn't matter much here.) > > The difference we did see was a slight decrease in the number of tasks > moved around at higher loads. That seems to be a good thing even though > it didn't directly show time-based performance benefits (and was pretty > minor). > > So if this helps other use cases we've got no problems with it. > Feel free to add a Reviewed-by: Phil Auld Jirka did the actual testing so he can speak up with a Tested-by if he wants to. > Thanks, > Phil > > -- > --