All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Steven Rostedt' <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: 'Vincent Guittot' <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: sched/fair: scheduler not running high priority process on idle cpu
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:33:50 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5ba2ae2d426c4058b314c20c25a9b1d0@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200114115906.22f952ff@gandalf.local.home>

From: Steven Rostedt
> Sent: 14 January 2020 16:59
> 
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:50:43 +0000
> David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> wrote:
> 
> > I've a test that uses four RT priority processes to process audio data every 10ms.
> > One process wakes up the other three, they all 'beaver away' clearing a queue of
> > jobs and the last one to finish sleeps until the next tick.
> > Usually this takes about 0.5ms, but sometimes takes over 3ms.
> >
> > AFAICT the processes are normally woken on the same cpu they last ran on.
> > There seems to be a problem when the selected cpu is running a (low priority)
> > process that is looping in kernel [1].
> > I'd expect my process to be picked up by one of the idle cpus, but this
> > doesn't happen.
> > Instead the process sits in state 'waiting' until the active processes sleeps
> > (or calls cond_resched()).
> >
> > Is this really the expected behaviour?????
> 
> It is with CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY. I think you want to recompile your
> kernel with CONFIG_PREEMPT. The idea is that the RT task will continue
> to run on the CPU it last ran on, and would push off the lower priority
> task to the idle CPU. But CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY means that this
> will have to wait for the running task to not be in kernel context or
> hit a cond_resched() which is the "voluntary" scheduling point.

I have added a cond_resched() to the offending loop, but a close look implies
that code is called with a lock held in another (less common) path so that
can't be directly committed and so CONFIG_PREEMPT won't help.

Indeed requiring CONFIG_PREEMPT doesn't help when customers are running
the application, nor (probably) on AWS since I doubt it is ever the default.

Does the same apply to non-RT tasks?
I can select almost any priority, but RT ones are otherwise a lot better.

I've also seen RT processes delayed by the network stack 'bh' that runs
in a softint from the hardware interrupt.
That can take a while (clearing up tx and refilling rx) and I don't think we
have any control over the cpu it runs on?

The cost of ftrace function call entry/exit (about 200 clocks) makes it
rather unsuitable for any performance measurements unless only
a very few functions are traced - which rather requires you know
what the code is doing :-(

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)


  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-14 17:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-14 16:50 sched/fair: scheduler not running high priority process on idle cpu David Laight
2020-01-14 16:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-01-14 17:33   ` David Laight [this message]
2020-01-14 17:48     ` Steven Rostedt
2020-01-15 12:44       ` David Laight
2020-01-15 13:18         ` Steven Rostedt
2020-01-15 14:43           ` David Laight
2020-01-15 15:11           ` David Laight
2020-01-15 15:30             ` Steven Rostedt
2020-01-15 17:07               ` David Laight
2020-01-20  9:39                 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-20 10:51                   ` David Laight
2020-01-15 14:56         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-01-15 15:09           ` David Laight
2020-01-15 12:57       ` David Laight
2020-01-15 14:23         ` Steven Rostedt

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=5ba2ae2d426c4058b314c20c25a9b1d0@AcuMS.aculab.com \
    --to=david.laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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.