All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:43:10 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1284388990.17152.19.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1284387398.2275.311.camel@laptop>

On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 16:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > > -     if (delta_exec < sysctl_sched_min_granularity)
> > > -             return;
> > 
> > Well, the reason why this test is here seems to be that we don't want to trigger
> > "resched_task" more often than needed, and here it's defined by the granularity.
> 
> Right, but its wrong for the weighted case. Letting a light task run
> that long will make its latency suck.
> 
> > I don't quite see with what you are replacing this, other than "let's set the
> > resched flag all the time to save a 32-bit division". I figure out it's more
> > expensive the call the scheduler than to do a 32-bit div.
> 
> The more divs we put it, the more expensive it all becomes.
> 

What about:

	if (delta_exec < sysctl_sched_min_granularity ||
	    delta_exec < __sched_gran(cfs_rq->nr_running))

This way we avoid the div when delta_exec is less than the
min_granularity, and then we can do the div to perhaps avoid a needless
resched?

-- Steve



  reply	other threads:[~2010-09-13 14:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-09-11 17:37 [RFC patch 0/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-11 17:37 ` [RFC patch 1/2] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-11 18:57   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-11 19:21     ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-11 20:36       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-11 20:45         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-11 20:52           ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-12  9:07             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-11 20:48         ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-12  9:06           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-12  9:14             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-12 20:39               ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 12:54                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-12 20:34             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 12:53               ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13  4:35             ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13  8:41               ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 11:22                 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 13:52                 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-09-13 13:54                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 14:02                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 14:21                       ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-11 20:52         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-11 19:57     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-12 10:41       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-12 20:37         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 12:53           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 13:15             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 13:56               ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 14:16                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 14:43                   ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2010-09-13 15:25                     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 15:39                       ` Steven Rostedt
2010-09-13 16:16                   ` [RFC PATCH] check_preempt_tick should not compare vruntime with wall time Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 16:36                     ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-13 17:45                       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 17:51                         ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-13 18:01                           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 18:10                           ` Steven Rostedt
2010-09-13 18:03                         ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 18:19                           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 18:23                             ` [PATCH] sched: Improve latencies under load by decreasing minimum scheduling granularity Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 18:28                               ` Joe Perches
2010-09-13 19:44                               ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-13 20:00                                 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 18:19                         ` [RFC PATCH] check_preempt_tick should not compare vruntime with wall time Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 17:36                     ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 17:56                       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-14  2:10                     ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 14:44                 ` [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running Mike Galbraith
     [not found]               ` <1284386179.10436.6.camel@marge.simson.net>
2010-09-13 15:53                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 18:04                   ` [RFC][PATCH] sched: Improve tick preemption Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-14  2:27                   ` [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running Mike Galbraith
2010-09-12  6:14   ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-12  7:21     ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-12 18:16       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13  4:13         ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13  6:41           ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13  7:08             ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13  7:35               ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13  8:35               ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13  9:16                 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13  9:37                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13  9:50                     ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13  9:55                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 10:06                         ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 10:45                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 11:43                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 11:49                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 12:32                             ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 20:19             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 20:56               ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-12 18:13     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-12 23:44       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-11 17:37 ` [RFC patch 2/2] sched: sleepers coarse granularity on wakeup Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-12 12:44 ` [RFC patch 0/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running Peter Zijlstra

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=1284388990.17152.19.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.