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
next prev parent 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®