From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
bristot@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, qyousef@layalina.io,
chris.hyser@oracle.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
pjt@google.com, pavel@ucw.cz, qperret@google.com,
tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, joshdon@google.com, timj@gnu.org,
kprateek.nayak@amd.com, yu.c.chen@intel.com,
youssefesmat@chromium.org, joel@joelfernandes.org, efault@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/17] sched/fair: Implement an EEVDF like policy
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:01:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230330080145.GA117836@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDDBVD_N6NgBYi_5iArDXd4iL0-ddQZDKGzzLAD-2AUXg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 04:35:25PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> IIUC how it works, Vd = ve + r / wi
>
> So for a same weight, the vd will be earlier but it's no more alway
> true for different weight
Correct; but for a heavier task the time also goes slower and since it
needs more time, you want it to go first. But yes, this is weird at
first glance.
Let us consider a 3 task scenario, where one task (A) is double weight
wrt to the other two (B,C), and let them run one quanta (q) at a time.
Each step will see V advance q/4.
A: w=2, r=4q B: w=1, r=4q C: w=1, r=4q
1) A runs -- earliest deadline
A |-------<
B |---------------<
C |---------------<
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----------
V ^
2) B runs (tie break with C) -- A is ineligible due to v_a > V
A |-----<
B |---------------<
C |---------------<
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----------
V ^
3) A runs -- earliest deadline
A |-----<
B |-----------<
C |---------------<
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----------
V ^
4) C runs -- only eligible task
A |---<
B |-----------<
C |---------------<
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----------
V ^
5) similar to 1)
A |---<
B |-----------<
C |-----------<
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----------
V ^
And we see that we get a very nice ABAC interleave, with the only other
possible schedule being ACAB.
By virtue of the heaver task getting a shorter virtual deadline it gets
nicely interleaved with the other tasks and you get a very consistent
schedule with very little choice.
Like already said, step 2) is the only place we had a choice, and if we
were to have given either B or C a shorter request (IOW latency-nice)
that choice would have been fully determined.
So increasing w gets you more time (and the shorter deadline causes the
above interleaving), while for the same w, reducing r gets you picked
earlier.
Perhaps another way to look at it is that since heavier tasks run more
(often) you've got to compete against it more often for latency.
Does that help?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-30 8:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-28 9:26 [PATCH 00/17] sched: EEVDF using latency-nice Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 01/17] sched: Introduce latency-nice as a per-task attribute Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 02/17] sched/fair: Add latency_offset Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 03/17] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 04/17] sched/fair: Add avg_vruntime Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 23:57 ` Josh Don
2023-03-29 7:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-05 19:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 05/17] sched/fair: Remove START_DEBIT Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 06/17] sched/fair: Add lag based placement Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-03 9:18 ` Chen Yu
2023-04-05 9:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-06 3:03 ` Chen Yu
2023-04-13 15:42 ` Chen Yu
2023-04-13 15:55 ` Chen Yu
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 07/17] rbtree: Add rb_add_augmented_cached() helper Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 08/17] sched/fair: Implement an EEVDF like policy Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 1:26 ` Josh Don
2023-03-29 8:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 8:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 8:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 18:48 ` Josh Don
2023-03-29 8:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 18:54 ` Josh Don
2023-03-29 8:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 14:35 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-30 8:01 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-03-30 17:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-04-04 12:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 09/17] sched: Commit to lag based placement Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 10/17] sched/smp: Use lag to simplify cross-runqueue placement Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 11/17] sched: Commit to EEVDF Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 12/17] sched/debug: Rename min_granularity to base_slice Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 13/17] sched: Merge latency_offset into slice Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 14/17] sched/eevdf: Better handle mixed slice length Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-31 15:26 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-04-04 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-04 13:50 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-04-05 5:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-04-05 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-05 20:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-04-14 11:18 ` Phil Auld
2023-04-16 5:10 ` Joel Fernandes
[not found] ` <20230401232355.336-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-04-02 2:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 15/17] [RFC] sched/eevdf: Sleeper bonus Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 9:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 16/17] [RFC] sched/eevdf: Minimal vavg option Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 17/17] [DEBUG] sched/eevdf: Debug / validation crud Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-03 7:42 ` [PATCH 00/17] sched: EEVDF using latency-nice Shrikanth Hegde
2023-04-10 3:13 ` David Vernet
2023-04-11 2:09 ` David Vernet
[not found] ` <20230410082307.1327-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-04-11 10:15 ` Mike Galbraith
[not found] ` <20230411133333.1790-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-04-11 14:56 ` Mike Galbraith
[not found] ` <20230412025042.1413-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-04-12 4:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-04-25 12:32 ` Phil Auld
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=20230330080145.GA117836@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=chris.hyser@oracle.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=timj@gnu.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=youssefesmat@chromium.org \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®