mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 08:41:58 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9d83771f-3d12-25f0-c3f8-70dd7942e9ce@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZmryuDqw2fEhHNni@chenyu5-mobl2>

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);

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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-06-14  3:12 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 [this message]
2024-06-14  3:16             ` K Prateek Nayak
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=9d83771f-3d12-25f0-c3f8-70dd7942e9ce@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®