From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] sched,fair: simplify timeslice length code
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:41:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCAU7bT3sJ_FPexqKrfFzd8Yk0hVTEB5Da=+VbqPViXpA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2a87463e8a51c34733e9c1fcf63380f9caa7afc4.camel@surriel.com>
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 18:00, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2019-08-29 at 16:02 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 01:19, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What am I overlooking?
> >
> > My point is more for task that runs several ticks in a row. Their
> > sched_slice will be shorter in some cases with your changes so they
> > can be preempted earlier by other runnable tasks with a lower
> > vruntime
> > and there will be more context switch
>
> I can think of exactly one case where the time slice
> will be shorter with my new code than with the old code,
> and that is the case where:
> - A CPU has nr_running > sched_nr_latency
yes nr_running must be higher than sched_nr_latency
> - __sched_period returns a value larger than sysctl_sched_latency
> - one of the tasks is much higher priority than the others
it's not only one, that can be several. It depends of the number of
running tasks
> - that one task alone gets a timeslice larger than sysctl_sched_latency
>
> With the new code, that high priority task will get a time
> slice that is a (large) fraction of sysctl_sched_latency,
yes
> while the other (lower priority) tasks get their time slices
> rounded up to sysctl_sched_min_granularity.
yes and if the jify period is higher than sysctl_sched_min_granularity
they will get a full jiffy period
>
> When tasks get their timeslice rounded up, that will increase
> the total sched period in a similar way the old code did by
> returning a longer period from __sched_period.
sched_slice is not a strict value and scheduler will not schedule out
the task after the sched_slice (unless you enable HRTICK which is
disable by default). Instead it will wait for next tick to change the
running task
sched_slice is mainly use to ensure a minimum running time in a row.
With this change, the running time of the high priority task will most
probably be split in several slice instead of one
>
> If a CPU is faced with a large number of equal priority tasks,
> both the old code and the new code would end up giving each
> task a timeslice length of sysctl_sched_min_granularity.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> --
> All Rights Reversed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-30 6:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-22 2:17 [PATCH RFC v4 0/15] sched,fair: flatten CPU controller runqueues Rik van Riel
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 01/15] sched: introduce task_se_h_load helper Rik van Riel
2019-08-23 18:13 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-08-24 0:05 ` Rik van Riel
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 02/15] sched: change /proc/sched_debug fields Rik van Riel
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 03/15] sched,fair: redefine runnable_load_avg as the sum of task_h_load Rik van Riel
2019-08-28 13:50 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-08-28 14:47 ` Rik van Riel
2019-08-28 15:02 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 04/15] sched,fair: move runnable_load_avg to cfs_rq Rik van Riel
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 05/15] sched,fair: remove cfs_rqs from leaf_cfs_rq_list bottom up Rik van Riel
2019-08-28 14:09 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 06/15] sched,cfs: use explicit cfs_rq of parent se helper Rik van Riel
2019-08-28 13:53 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-08-28 15:28 ` Rik van Riel
2019-08-28 16:34 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 07/15] sched,cfs: fix zero length timeslice calculation Rik van Riel
2019-08-28 16:59 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 08/15] sched,fair: simplify timeslice length code Rik van Riel
2019-08-28 17:32 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-08-28 23:18 ` Rik van Riel
2019-08-29 14:02 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-08-29 16:00 ` Rik van Riel
2019-08-30 6:41 ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2019-08-30 15:01 ` Rik van Riel
2019-09-02 7:51 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-09-02 17:47 ` Rik van Riel
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 09/15] sched,fair: refactor enqueue/dequeue_entity Rik van Riel
2019-09-03 15:38 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-09-03 20:27 ` Rik van Riel
2019-09-04 6:44 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 10/15] sched,fair: add helper functions for flattened runqueue Rik van Riel
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 11/15] sched,fair: flatten hierarchical runqueues Rik van Riel
2019-08-23 18:14 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-08-24 1:16 ` Rik van Riel
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 12/15] sched,fair: flatten update_curr functionality Rik van Riel
2019-08-27 10:37 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 13/15] sched,fair: propagate sum_exec_runtime up the hierarchy Rik van Riel
2019-08-28 7:51 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-08-28 13:14 ` Rik van Riel
2019-08-29 17:20 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-08-29 18:06 ` Rik van Riel
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 14/15] sched,fair: ramp up task_se_h_weight quickly Rik van Riel
2019-08-22 2:17 ` [PATCH 15/15] sched,fair: scale vdiff in wakeup_preempt_entity Rik van Riel
2019-09-02 10:53 ` [PATCH RFC v4 0/15] sched,fair: flatten CPU controller runqueues Dietmar Eggemann
2019-09-03 1:44 ` Rik van Riel
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='CAKfTPtCAU7bT3sJ_FPexqKrfFzd8Yk0hVTEB5Da=+VbqPViXpA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).