mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yuyang.du@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: fix lose fair sleeper bonus in switch_to_fair()
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:23:56 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP196ECB48F9734CB73A5B8780530@phx.gbl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150908061426.GE6455@byungchulpark-X58A-UD3R>

On 9/8/15 2:14 PM, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 01:38:08PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> On 9/8/15 1:28 PM, Byungchul Park wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 11:46:01AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/15 10:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> Please always Cc at least the person who wrote the lines you modify.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:45:20PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>>>> The sleeper task will be normalized when moved from fair_sched_class, in
>>>>>> order that vruntime will be adjusted either the task is running or sleeping
>>>>>> when moved back. The nomalization in switch_to_fair for sleep task will
>>>>>> result in lose fair sleeper bonus in place_entity() once the vruntime -
>>>>>> cfs_rq->min_vruntime is big when moved from fair_sched_class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch fix it by adjusting vruntime just during migrating as original
>>>>>> codes since the vruntime of the task has usually NOT been normalized in
>>>>>> this case.
>>>>> Sorry, I cannot follow that at all. Maybe its me being sleep deprived,
>>>>> but could you try that again?
>>>> When changing away from the fair class while sleeping, relative
>>>> vruntime is calculated to handle the case sleep when moved from
>>>> fair_sched_class and running when moved to fair_sched_class. The
>>> i don't think relative vruntime is calculated to handle the special case
>>> you mentioned. i think the calculation is necessary for all cases detaching
>> Please refer why the relative vruntime caculation is introduced to
>> switched_from_fair(): https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/17/129
> hello,
>
> it is just a bug caused by not calculating a relative vruntime when
> detached a task from cfs_rq, which is necessary though.

Refer to Peterz's comments:

| There is also a case where it was moved from fair_sched_class when it
| was in a blocked state and moved back while it is running.

>
>>> a task from a cfs_rq.
>>>
>>>> absolute vruntime will be calculated in enqueue_entity() either the
>>>> task is running or sleeping when moved back. The fair sleeper bonus
>>> i think absolute vruntime is calculated in enqueue_entuty() only when the
>>> task is on rq. therefore in the case that the task is not on rq,
>>> switched_to_fair() has to calculate the absolute vruntime instread.
>> Absolute vruntime is caculated in place_entity() which is called by
>> enqueue_entity() for DEQUEUE_SLEEP task.
> as you may know, place_entity() is not for calculating an absolute
> vruntime though.. anyway the important thing here is that, when a
> sleeping task is moved back to fair class, enqueue_entity() for
> DEQUEUE_SLEEP task won't be called.

The enqueue_entity() for DEQUEUE_SLEEP task will be called when the task 
is wake up.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li

  reply	other threads:[~2015-09-08  6:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-07  9:45 Wanpeng Li
2015-09-07 14:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-08  3:46   ` Wanpeng Li
2015-09-08  5:28     ` Byungchul Park
2015-09-08  5:38       ` Wanpeng Li
2015-09-08  6:14         ` Byungchul Park
2015-09-08  6:23           ` Wanpeng Li [this message]
2015-09-08  6:45             ` Byungchul Park
2015-09-08  6:32           ` Byungchul Park
2015-09-08  6:42             ` Wanpeng Li
2015-09-08  7:11               ` Byungchul Park
2015-09-08  7:30                 ` Wanpeng Li
2015-09-08  7:57                   ` Byungchul Park
2015-09-08  8:04                     ` Wanpeng Li
2015-09-08  8:22                       ` Byungchul Park
2015-09-08  8:38                         ` Wanpeng Li
2015-09-08  8:45                           ` Wanpeng Li
2015-09-08  8:55                             ` byungchul.park
2015-09-08  9:17                             ` Byungchul Park
2015-09-08 11:22                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-08  8:48                           ` byungchul.park
2015-09-08  6:43       ` Byungchul Park
     [not found]   ` <BLU437-SMTP75CDA80FC247CB1C9E5A2480540@phx.gbl>
2015-09-08  9:49     ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-08  2:10 ` Byungchul Park
2015-09-08  6:55   ` Wanpeng Li

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=BLU436-SMTP196ECB48F9734CB73A5B8780530@phx.gbl \
    --to=wanpeng.li@hotmail.com \
    --cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=yuyang.du@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®