From: Joonwoo Park <joonwoop@codeaurora.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Joonwoo Park <joonwoop@codeaurora.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: rearm hrtick timer when it's senseful
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 18:41:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1476841279-21958-1-git-send-email-joonwoop@codeaurora.org> (raw)
When a new cfs task enqueued, fair scheduler rearms current cfs task's
hrtick expiration time with decreased slice. But the slice stops
decreasing eventually when it reached sched_min_granularity.
Consequently cfs scheduler also stops rearming of hrtick timer because
hrtick expiration time for the current cfs task doesn't change. This
is a legitimate optimization but there is a subtle error in the 'if'
condition so at present cfs scheduler stops rearming of hrtick timer
earlier than ideal that will cause a subtle unfairness.
When sched_latency = 6ms, sched_min_granularity = 0.75ms,
sched_nr_latency = 8 :
nr_run slice period
1 6.00 ms 6 ms
2 3.00 ms 6 ms
3 4.50 ms 6 ms
4 1.50 ms 6 ms
5 1.20 ms 6 ms
6 1.00 ms 6 ms
7 0.85 ms 6 ms
8 0.75 ms 6 ms
9+ 0.75 ms 6.75ms
The first time when sched_slice becomes equal to sched_min_granularity
is when cfs_rq's nr_running becomes equal to sched_nr_latency. Fix
the condition to rearm the hrtick nr_running up to sched_nr_latency.
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Joonwoo Park <joonwoop@codeaurora.org>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 71c08a8..f465448 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4507,7 +4507,7 @@ static void hrtick_update(struct rq *rq)
if (!hrtick_enabled(rq) || curr->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)
return;
- if (cfs_rq_of(&curr->se)->nr_running < sched_nr_latency)
+ if (cfs_rq_of(&curr->se)->nr_running <= sched_nr_latency)
hrtick_start_fair(rq, curr);
}
#else /* !CONFIG_SCHED_HRTICK */
--
2.9.3
next reply other threads:[~2016-10-19 1:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-19 1:41 Joonwoo Park [this message]
2016-10-19 1:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: avoid unnecessary hrtick rearm when it's possible Joonwoo Park
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1476841279-21958-1-git-send-email-joonwoop@codeaurora.org \
--to=joonwoop@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome