mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, parth@linux.ibm.com
Cc: qyousef@layalina.io, chris.hyser@oracle.com,
	patrick.bellasi@matbug.net, David.Laight@aculab.com,
	pjt@google.com, pavel@ucw.cz, tj@kernel.org, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] sched/fair: fix unfairness at wakeup
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 20:13:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <32f4a76d-103e-510f-de70-ba9dfe2356ce@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221110175009.18458-2-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>

On 10/11/2022 18:50, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> At wake up, the vruntime of a task is updated to not be more older than
> a sched_latency period behind the min_vruntime. This prevents long sleeping
> task to get unlimited credit at wakeup.
> Such waking task should preempt current one to use its CPU bandwidth but
> wakeup_gran() can be larger than sched_latency, filter out the
> wakeup preemption and as a results steals some CPU bandwidth to
> the waking task.
> 
> Make sure that a task, which vruntime has been capped, will preempt current
> task and use its CPU bandwidth even if wakeup_gran() is in the same range
> as sched_latency.

Looks like that gran can be nuch higher than sched_latency for extreme
cases?

> 
> If the waking task failed to preempt current it could to wait up to
> sysctl_sched_min_granularity before preempting it during next tick.
> 
> Strictly speaking, we should use cfs->min_vruntime instead of
> curr->vruntime but it doesn't worth the additional overhead and complexity
> as the vruntime of current should be close to min_vruntime if not equal.

^^^ Does this related to the `if (vdiff > gran) return 1` condition in
wakeup_preempt_entity()?

[...]

> @@ -7187,6 +7171,18 @@ wakeup_preempt_entity(struct sched_entity *curr, struct sched_entity *se)
>  		return -1;
>  
>  	gran = wakeup_gran(se);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * At wake up, the vruntime of a task is capped to not be older than
> +	 * a sched_latency period compared to min_vruntime. This prevents long
> +	 * sleeping task to get unlimited credit at wakeup. Such waking up task
> +	 * has to preempt current in order to not lose its share of CPU
> +	 * bandwidth but wakeup_gran() can become higher than scheduling period
> +	 * for low priority task. Make sure that long sleeping task will get a

low priority task or taskgroup with low cpu.shares, right?

6 CPUs

sysctl_sched
  .sysctl_sched_latency              : 18.000000
  .sysctl_sched_min_granularity      : 2.250000
  .sysctl_sched_idle_min_granularity : 0.750000
  .sysctl_sched_wakeup_granularity   : 3.000000
  ...

p1 & p2 affine to CPUX

     '/'
     /\
   p1  p2

p1 & p2	nice=0	      - vdiff=9ms gran=3ms lat_max=6.75ms
p1 & p2	nice=4	      - vdiff=9ms gran=7.26ms lat_max=6.75ms
p1 & p2	nice=19	      - vdiff=9ms gran=204.79ms lat_max=6.75ms


     '/'
     /\
    A  B
   /    \
  p1    p2

A & B cpu.shares=1024 - vdiff=9ms gran=3ms lat_max=6.75ms
A & B cpu.shares=448  - vdiff=9ms gran=6.86ms lat_max=6.75ms
A & B cpu.shares=2    - vdiff=9ms gran=1536ms lat_max=6.75ms

> +	 * chance to preempt current.
> +	 */
> +	gran = min_t(s64, gran, get_latency_max());
> +

[...]

> @@ -2448,6 +2448,34 @@ extern unsigned int sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_period_max;
>  extern unsigned int sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_size;
>  #endif
>  
> +static inline unsigned long  get_sched_latency(bool idle)
                              ^^
2 white-spaces

[...]

> +
> +static inline unsigned long  get_latency_max(void)
                              ^^

[...]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-11-14 19:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-10 17:50 [PATCH v8 0/9] Add latency priority for CFS class Vincent Guittot
2022-11-10 17:50 ` [PATCH v8 1/9] sched/fair: fix unfairness at wakeup Vincent Guittot
2022-11-14  3:06   ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-14 11:05     ` Vincent Guittot
2022-11-16  2:10       ` Joel Fernandes
2022-11-16  8:25       ` Aaron Lu
2022-11-17  9:18         ` Vincent Guittot
2022-11-14 16:19   ` Patrick Bellasi
2022-11-14 16:46     ` Vincent Guittot
2022-11-14 19:13   ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2022-11-15  7:26     ` Vincent Guittot
2022-11-10 17:50 ` [PATCH v8 2/9] sched: Introduce latency-nice as a per-task attribute Vincent Guittot
2022-11-10 17:50 ` [PATCH v8 3/9] sched/core: Propagate parent task's latency requirements to the child task Vincent Guittot
2022-11-10 17:50 ` [PATCH v8 4/9] sched: Allow sched_{get,set}attr to change latency_nice of the task Vincent Guittot
2022-11-10 17:50 ` [PATCH v8 5/9] sched/fair: Take into account latency priority at wakeup Vincent Guittot
2022-11-14 16:20   ` Patrick Bellasi
2022-11-15 15:40     ` Vincent Guittot
2022-11-10 17:50 ` [PATCH v8 6/9] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support Vincent Guittot
2022-11-14 16:20   ` Patrick Bellasi
2022-11-14 16:57     ` Vincent Guittot
2022-11-10 17:50 ` [PATCH v8 7/9] sched/core: Support latency priority with sched core Vincent Guittot
2022-11-10 17:50 ` [PATCH v8 8/9] sched/fair: Add latency list Vincent Guittot
2022-11-10 17:50 ` [PATCH v8 9/9] sched/fair: remove check_preempt_from_others Vincent Guittot

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=32f4a76d-103e-510f-de70-ba9dfe2356ce@arm.com \
    --to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=chris.hyser@oracle.com \
    --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@redhat.com \
    --cc=parth@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --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=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --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®