From: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
To: Tobias Huschle <huschle@linux.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, 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,
sshegde@linux.vnet.ibm.com, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched/eevdf: sched feature to dismiss lag on wakeup
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:11:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5a32e8e1-67cf-4296-a655-f0fc35dc880a@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240228161018.14253-1-huschle@linux.ibm.com>
Hi Tobias,
On 2/28/24 16:10, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> The previously used CFS scheduler gave tasks that were woken up an
> enhanced chance to see runtime immediately by deducting a certain value
> from its vruntime on runqueue placement during wakeup.
>
> This property was used by some, at least vhost, to ensure, that certain
> kworkers are scheduled immediately after being woken up. The EEVDF
> scheduler, does not support this so far. Instead, if such a woken up
> entitiy carries a negative lag from its previous execution, it will have
> to wait for the current time slice to finish, which affects the
> performance of the process expecting the immediate execution negatively.
>
> To address this issue, implement EEVDF strategy #2 for rejoining
> entities, which dismisses the lag from previous execution and allows
> the woken up task to run immediately (if no other entities are deemed
> to be preferred for scheduling by EEVDF).
>
> The vruntime is decremented by an additional value of 1 to make sure,
> that the woken up tasks gets to actually run. This is of course not
> following strategy #2 in an exact manner but guarantees the expected
> behavior for the scenario described above. Without the additional
> decrement, the performance goes south even more. So there are some
> side effects I could not get my head around yet.
>
> Questions:
> 1. The kworker getting its negative lag occurs in the following scenario
> - kworker and a cgroup are supposed to execute on the same CPU
> - one task within the cgroup is executing and wakes up the kworker
> - kworker with 0 lag, gets picked immediately and finishes its
> execution within ~5000ns
> - on dequeue, kworker gets assigned a negative lag
> Is this expected behavior? With this short execution time, I would
> expect the kworker to be fine.
That strikes me as a bit odd as well. Have you been able to determine how a negative lag
is assigned to the kworker after such a short runtime?
I was looking at a different thread (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240226082349.302363-1-yu.c.chen@intel.com/) that
uncovers a potential overflow in the eligibility calculation. Though I don't think that is the case for this particular
vhost problem.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-08 15:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-28 16:10 [RFC] sched/eevdf: sched feature to dismiss lag on wakeup Tobias Huschle
2024-02-29 3:36 ` K Prateek Nayak
2024-03-06 11:31 ` Tobias Huschle
2024-03-08 15:11 ` Luis Machado [this message]
2024-03-14 13:45 ` Tobias Huschle
2024-03-18 14:45 ` Luis Machado
2024-03-19 9:08 ` Tobias Huschle
2024-03-19 13:41 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-03-20 7:04 ` Tobias Huschle
2024-03-20 8:12 ` Luis Machado
[not found] ` <65fa8a7c.050a0220.c8ec5.0278SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
2024-03-20 13:51 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-03-21 12:18 ` Tobias Huschle
[not found] ` <65fc25ae.810a0220.f705f.4cdbSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
2024-03-22 17:02 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-04-09 7:35 ` Tobias Huschle
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=5a32e8e1-67cf-4296-a655-f0fc35dc880a@arm.com \
--to=luis.machado@arm.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=huschle@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sshegde@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).