On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 09:37:00AM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 10:56 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 03:47:33PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > CC peterz as well for rt and timekeeping magic > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 02:16:52PM +0800, Huangzhaoyang wrote: > > > > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > In an EAS enabled system, there are two scenarios discordant to current design, > > > > > > > > 1. workload used to be heavy uneven among cores for sake of scheduler policy. > > > > RT task usually preempts CFS task in little core. > > > > 2. CFS task's memstall time is counted as simple as exit - entry so far, which > > > > ignore the preempted time by RT, DL and Irqs. > > > > It ignores preemption full-stop. I don't see why RT/IRQ should be > > special cased here. > As Johannes comments, what we are trying to solve is mainly the > preempted time of the CFS task by RT/IRQ, NOT the RT/IRQ themselves. > Could you please catch up the recent reply of Dietmar, which maybe > provide more information. In that case NAK.
