[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251112122521.1331238-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 12:25:19 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>,
Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2 v5] Reintroduce NEXT_BUDDY for EEVDF
Changes since v4
o Splitout decisions into separate functions (peterz)
o Flow clarity (peterz)
Changes since v3
o Place new code near first consumer (peterz)
o Separate between PREEMPT_SHORT and NEXT_BUDDY (peterz)
o Naming and code flow clarity (peterz)
o Restore slice protection (peterz)
Changes since v2
o Review feedback applied from Prateek
I've been chasing down a number of schedule issues recently like many
others and found they were broadly grouped as
1. Failure to boost CPU frequency with powersave/ondemand governors
2. Processors entering idle states that are too deep
3. Differences in wakeup latencies for wakeup-intensive workloads
Adding topology into account means that there is a lot of machine-specific
behaviour which may explain why some discussions recently have reproduction
problems. Nevertheless, the removal of LAST_BUDDY and NEXT_BUDDY being
disabled has an impact on wakeup latencies.
This series enables NEXT_BUDDY and may select a wakee if it's eligible to
run even though other unrelated tasks may have an earlier deadline.
Mel Gorman (2):
sched/fair: Enable scheduler feature NEXT_BUDDY
sched/fair: Reimplement NEXT_BUDDY to align with EEVDF goals
kernel/sched/fair.c | 152 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
kernel/sched/features.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
--
2.51.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists