[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YufUj4klPKmKNj26@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 15:26:39 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Cc: Libo Chen <libo.chen@...cle.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, mgorman@...e.de,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, 21cnbao@...il.com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: no sync wakeup from interrupt context
* K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com> wrote:
> Hello Libo and Peter,
>
> tl;dr
>
> - We observed a major regression with tbench when testing the latest tip
> sched/core at:
> commit 14b3f2d9ee8d "sched/fair: Disallow sync wakeup from interrupt context"
> Reason for the regression are the fewer affine wakeups that leaves the
> client farther away from the data it needs to consume next primed in the
> waker's LLC.
> Such regressions can be expected from tasks that use sockets to communicate
> significant amount of data especially on system with multiple LLCs.
>
> - Other benchmarks have a comparable behavior to the tip at previous commit
> commit : 91caa5ae2424 "sched/core: Fix the bug that task won't enqueue
> into core tree when update cookie"
>
> I'll leave more details below.
Mel Gorman also warned about this negative side-effect in:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: no sync wakeup from interrupt context
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 11:07:38 +0100
Message-ID: <20220715100738.GD3493@...e.de>
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220715100738.GD3493@suse.de/
I've reverted this commit (14b3f2d9ee8df3b) for the time being from
tip:sched/core.
Thanks for the heads-up!
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists