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=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 6087AC433F5 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:40:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46EC361159 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:40:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235532AbhIUVl6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:41:58 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.220.28]:53612 "EHLO smtp-out1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233105AbhIUVl5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:41:57 -0400 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E305F22231; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:40:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1632260426; h=from:from:reply-to: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=1pf8A2LEZRnJDCFgdhhV4jNvAnQNjTPCx0npuMr8mUk=; b=ppozAP9lWLzVJ/wRYAeyuzxOkkAMPOQorJ+TVuX22Rd/h2kfDW1qOVQE+j0WIO3LWfwfWl 79qDAwxGfP2lBu089g/VcrakJ+cp6qg4uu9gP++0GOuqTF4+Sx80MyESrTWgbAowIl6p1x q0ZKsKtfhl2JoyHg/aftoNGoCkw71Cs= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E9B713BF7; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id S6aMHUpRSmHNIgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:40:26 +0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 23:40:25 +0200 From: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= To: Odin Ugedal Cc: Vincent Guittot , linux-kernel , Phil Auld , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , Daniel Bristot de Oliveira , Rik van Riel , Giovanni Gherdovich Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/5] sched/fair: Simplify load_cfs_rq_list maintenance Message-ID: References: <20210819175034.4577-1-mkoutny@suse.com> <20210819175034.4577-5-mkoutny@suse.com> <20210914092207.GA23743@blackbody.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 08:21:50PM +0100, Odin Ugedal wrote: > With the changes in PATCH 1 of this series [0], That patch is an independent fix of the described bug. > I think this logic needs to be updated as well (or correct me if I am > wrong). I might be dense, what update are you referring to? (The adding to the list in tg_unthrottle_up() is already guarded by cfs_rq->throttle_count.) > Did a quick look now, and it looks like there are some conflicts with > the linus' tree when applying the series as well, but didn't look that > deep into what caused it (for ref I tested on v5.15-rc2). This v2 was based on v5.14-rc6 back then and yes when I was rebasing (locally), I had to resolve conflicts because of SCHED_IDLE for cgroups. > Not sure how you want to structure this patch series as all the > patches kinda depend on each other, since you sent the updated one > separately (and I am fairly new to kernel development, so I have no > idea), while patch 1 is fixing a "real" issue that we probably want to > get fixed as soon as possible. I put the patch first in the series to be backport friendly but then I decided to send v3 of just that one patch, exactly for the reason of making the fix earlier. I may get down to addressing feedback of the remaining patches (v2, 2--5) only later. Thanks for your comments and patience :-) Michal