[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260112074703.GB830755@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 08:47:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aishwarya TCV <Aishwarya.TCV@....com>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] sched/fair: Reimplement NEXT_BUDDY to align with
EEVDF goals
On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 10:15:46AM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> Here are the updated results, now including column for "revert #1 & #2".
>
> 6-18-0 (base) (baseline)
> 6-19-0-rc1 (New NEXT_BUDDY implementation enabled)
> revert #1 & #2 (NEXT_BUDDY disabled)
> revert #2 (Old NEXT_BUDDY implementation enabled)
>
>
> The regressions that are fixed by "revert #2" (as originally reported) are still
> fixed in "revert #1 & #2". Interestingly, performance actually improves further
> for the latter in the multi-node mysql benchmark (which is our VIP workload).
> There are a couple of hackbench cases (sockets with high thread counts) that
> showed an improvement with "revert #2" but which is gone with "revert #1 & #2".
>
> Let me know if I can usefully do anything else.
If its not too much bother, could you run 6.19-rc with SCHED_BATCH ? The
defining characteristic of BATCH is that it fully ignores wakeup
preemption.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists