From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>, Chunxin Zang <spring.cxz@gmail.com>
Cc: Honglei Wang <jameshongleiwang@126.com>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
<vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
<rostedt@goodmis.org>, <bsegall@google.com>, <mgorman@suse.de>,
<bristot@redhat.com>, <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<yangchen11@lixiang.com>, Jerry Zhou <zhouchunhua@lixiang.com>,
Chunxin Zang <zangchunxin@lixiang.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Reschedule the cfs_rq when current is ineligible
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:46:54 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4c285c36-6893-c0c4-1061-0d7e16445e9d@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9d83771f-3d12-25f0-c3f8-70dd7942e9ce@amd.com>
Hello Chenyu,
On 6/14/2024 8:41 AM, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Hello Chenyu,
>
> Sorry, I'm a bit late to the thread but ...
>
> On 6/13/2024 6:53 PM, Chen Yu wrote:
>> [..snip..]
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if we can only take care of the NO_RUN_TO_PARITY case?
>>>> Something like this,
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>> index 03be0d1330a6..5e49a15bbdd3 100644
>>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>> @@ -745,6 +745,21 @@ int entity_eligible(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
>>>>> struct sched_entity *se)
>>>>> return vruntime_eligible(cfs_rq, se->vruntime);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static bool check_entity_need_preempt(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
>>>>> struct sched_entity *se)
>>>>> +{
>>>> if (sched_feat(RUN_TO_PARITY) || cfs_rq->nr_running <= 1 ||
>>>> !entity_eligible(cfs_rq, se))
>>>> return false;
>>>>
>>>> return true;
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This does indeed look better. In that case, do I need to make the
>>> changes this way and send
>>> out a version 3?
>>
>> If you mean the following changes, maybe we can continue the
>> discussion here.
>> This is just my 2 cents, not sure what others think of it. Anyway, I
>> can launch some tests.
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 8a5b1ae0aa55..c0fdb25f0695 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -744,6 +744,15 @@ int entity_eligible(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
>> sched_entity *se)
>> return vruntime_eligible(cfs_rq, se->vruntime);
>> }
>> +static bool check_curr_preempt(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
>> sched_entity *curr)
>> +{
>> + if (sched_feat(RUN_TO_PARITY) || cfs_rq->nr_running <= 1 ||
>> + !entity_eligible(cfs_rq, curr))
>
> Shouldn't this return false if "entity_eligible(cfs_rq, curr)" returns
> true since curr is still vruntime eligible on cfs_rq?
>
> Would it better to have check_curr_preempt() as follows:
>
> if (sched_feat(RUN_TO_PARITY) || cfs_rq->nr_running <= 1)
> return false;
>
> return entity_eligible(cfs_rq, curr);
The above return should have been:
return !entity_eligible(cfs_rq, curr);
Which returns true once curr is not vruntime eligible on cfs_rq.
Sorry for the oversight.
>
> which returns false if curr is ineligible and scheduler can go ahead and
> and call schedule to evaluate the next best step?
>
> Please let me know if I'm missing something.
>
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> static u64 __update_min_vruntime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, u64 vruntime)
>> {
>> u64 min_vruntime = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
>> [..snip..]
>
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-14 3:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-29 14:18 Chunxin Zang
2024-06-04 7:28 ` kernel test robot
2024-06-07 5:07 ` Chen Yu
2024-06-12 10:39 ` Chunxin Zang
2024-06-13 11:54 ` Chen Yu
2024-06-13 12:02 ` Chunxin Zang
2024-06-13 13:23 ` Chen Yu
2024-06-13 13:46 ` Chunxin Zang
2024-06-14 3:11 ` K Prateek Nayak
2024-06-14 3:16 ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2024-06-14 4:14 ` Chen Yu
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=4c285c36-6893-c0c4-1061-0d7e16445e9d@amd.com \
--to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=jameshongleiwang@126.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=spring.cxz@gmail.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=yangchen11@lixiang.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=zangchunxin@lixiang.com \
--cc=zhouchunhua@lixiang.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®