[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241202191252.GA1233297@pauld.westford.csb>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:12:52 -0500
From: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kprateek.nayak@....com, wuyun.abel@...edance.com,
youssefesmat@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sched/fair: Dequeue sched_delayed tasks when waking
to a busy CPU
On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 05:55:28PM +0100 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-12-02 at 11:24 -0500, Phil Auld wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 09:44:40AM +0100 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Question: did wiping off the evil leave any meaningful goodness behind?
> >
> > Is that for this patch?
>
> Yeah. Trying it on my box with your write command line didn't improve
> the confidence level either. My box has one CPU handling IRQs and
> waking pinned workers to service 8 fio instances. Patch was useless
> for that.
>
I'll give it a try. Our "box" is multiple different boxes but the results
vary somewhat. The one I sent info about earlier in this thread is just
one of the more egregious and is the one the perf team lent me for a while.
Cheers,
Phil
> -Mike
>
>
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists