On 9/17/19 6:33 PM, Aubrey Li wrote: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 10:14 PM Aaron Lu <aaron...@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>> >> And I have pushed Tim's branch to: >> https://github.com/aaronlu/linux coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-tim >> >> Mine: >> https://github.com/aaronlu/linux coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-core_vruntime Aubrey, Thanks for testing with your set up. I think the test that's of interest is to see my load balancing added on top of Aaron's fairness patch, instead of using my previous version of forced idle approach in coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-tim branch. I've added my two load balance patches on top of Aaron's patches in coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-core_vruntime branch and put it in https://github.com/pdxChen/gang/tree/coresched-v3-v5.1.5-test-core_vruntime-lb > > As Aaron pointed out, vruntime is with se's weight, which could be a reason > for the difference. > > So should we go with core vruntime approach? > Or Tim - do you want to improve forced idle time approach? > I hope to improve the forced idle time later. But for now let's see if additional load balance logic can help remove cgroup mismatch and improve performance, on top of Aaron's fairness patches. Thanks. Tim
