linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Vineeth Remanan Pillai" <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
	"Nishanth Aravamudan" <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
	"Julien Desfossez" <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
	"Tim Chen" <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Paul Turner" <pjt@google.com>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Aaron Lu" <aaron.lu@linux.alibaba.com>,
	"Linux List Kernel Mailing" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"Greg Kerr" <kerrnel@google.com>, "Phil Auld" <pauld@redhat.com>,
	"Aubrey Li" <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
	"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
	"Valentin Schneider" <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	"Mel Gorman" <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	"Pawan Gupta" <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
	"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Joel Fernandes" <joelaf@google.com>,
	"Joel Fernandes" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH updated v2] sched/fair: core wide cfs task priority comparison
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 20:34:57 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200508123457.GA122180@aaronlu-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200508090925.GV5298@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 04:44:19PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 04:35:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > Aside from this being way to complicated for what it does -- you
> > > could've saved the min_vruntime for each rq and compared them with
> > > subtraction -- it is also terminally broken afaict.
> > >
> > > Consider any infeasible weight scenario. Take for instance two tasks,
> > > each bound to their respective sibling, one with weight 1 and one with
> > > weight 2. Then the lower weight task will run ahead of the higher weight
> > > task without bound.
> > 
> > I don't follow how this could happen. Even the lower weight task runs
> > first, after some time, the higher weight task will get its turn and
> > from then on, the higher weight task will get more chance to run(due to
> > its higher weight and thus, slower accumulation of vruntime).
> 
> That seems to assume they're mutually exclusive. In that case, as I
> argued, we only have a single runqueue and then yes it works. But if
> they're not exclusive, and can run concurrently, it comes apart.

Ah right, now I see what you mean. Sorry for misunderstanding.

And yes, that 'utterly destroys the concept of a shared time base' and
then bad things can happen:
1) two same tagged tasks(t1 and t2) running on two siblings, with t1's
   weight lower than t2's;
2) both tasks are cpu intensive;
3) over time, the lower weight task(t1)'s vruntime becomes bigger and
   bigger than t2's vruntime and the core wide min_vruntime is the
   same as t1's vruntime per this patch;
4) a new task enqueued on the same sibling as t1, if the new task has
   an incompatible tag, it will be starved by t2 because t2's vruntime
   is way smaller than the core wide min_vruntime.

With this said, I realized a workaround for the issue described above:
when the core went from 'compatible mode'(step 1-3) to 'incompatible
mode'(step 4), reset all root level sched entities' vruntime to be the
same as the core wide min_vruntime. After all, the core is transforming
from two runqueue mode to single runqueue mode... I think this can solve
the issue to some extent but I may miss other scenarios.

I'll also re-read your last email about the 'lag' idea.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-08 12:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 110+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-04 16:59 [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5 vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 01/13] sched: Wrap rq::lock access vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 02/13] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 03/13] sched: Core-wide rq->lock vpillai
2020-04-01 11:42   ` [PATCH] sched/arm64: store cpu topology before notify_cpu_starting Cheng Jian
2020-04-01 13:23     ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-06  8:00       ` chengjian (D)
2020-04-09  9:59       ` Sudeep Holla
2020-04-09 10:32         ` Valentin Schneider
2020-04-09 11:08           ` Sudeep Holla
2020-04-09 17:54     ` Joel Fernandes
2020-04-10 13:49       ` chengjian (D)
2020-04-14 11:36   ` [RFC PATCH 03/13] sched: Core-wide rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-14 21:35     ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-15 10:55       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-14 14:32   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 04/13] sched/fair: Add a few assertions vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 05/13] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 06/13] sched: Update core scheduler queue when taking cpu online/offline vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 07/13] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling vpillai
2020-04-14 13:35   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 23:32     ` Tim Chen
2020-04-17 10:57       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16  3:39   ` Chen Yu
2020-04-16 19:59     ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-17 11:18     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-19 15:31       ` Chen Yu
2020-05-21 23:14   ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 23:16     ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-22  2:35     ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-22  3:44       ` Aaron Lu
2020-05-22 20:13         ` Joel Fernandes
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 08/13] sched/fair: wrapper for cfs_rq->min_vruntime vpillai
2020-03-04 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH 09/13] sched/fair: core wide vruntime comparison vpillai
2020-04-14 13:56   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-15  3:34     ` Aaron Lu
2020-04-15  4:07       ` Aaron Lu
2020-04-15 21:24         ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-17  9:40           ` Aaron Lu
2020-04-20  8:07             ` [PATCH updated] sched/fair: core wide cfs task priority comparison Aaron Lu
2020-04-20 22:26               ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-21  2:51                 ` Aaron Lu
2020-04-24 14:24                   ` [PATCH updated v2] " Aaron Lu
2020-05-06 14:35                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-08  8:44                       ` Aaron Lu
2020-05-08  9:09                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-08 12:34                           ` Aaron Lu [this message]
2020-05-14 13:02                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-14 22:51                               ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-05-15 10:38                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-15 10:43                                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-15 14:24                                   ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-05-16  3:42                               ` Aaron Lu
2020-05-22  9:40                                 ` Aaron Lu
2020-06-08  1:41                               ` Ning, Hongyu
2020-03-04 17:00 ` [RFC PATCH 10/13] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer vpillai
2020-03-04 17:00 ` [RFC PATCH 11/13] sched: migration changes for core scheduling vpillai
2020-06-12 13:21   ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-12 21:32     ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-13  2:25       ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-13 18:59         ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-15  2:05           ` Li, Aubrey
2020-03-04 17:00 ` [RFC PATCH 12/13] sched: cgroup tagging interface " vpillai
2020-06-26 15:06   ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-03-04 17:00 ` [RFC PATCH 13/13] sched: Debug bits vpillai
2020-03-04 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5 Tim Chen
2020-03-04 17:42   ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-04-14 14:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-15 16:32   ` Joel Fernandes
2020-04-17 11:12     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-17 12:35       ` Alexander Graf
2020-04-17 13:08         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-18  2:25       ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-09 14:35   ` Dario Faggioli
     [not found] ` <38805656-2e2f-222a-c083-692f4b113313@linux.intel.com>
2020-05-09  3:39   ` Ning, Hongyu
2020-05-14 20:51     ` FW: " Gruza, Agata
2020-05-10 23:46 ` [PATCH RFC] Add support for core-wide protection of IRQ and softirq Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-05-11 13:49   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-11 14:54     ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-20 22:26 ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Add a per-thread core scheduling interface Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-05-21  4:09   ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Add a per-thread core scheduling interface(Internet mail) benbjiang(蒋彪)
2020-05-21 13:49     ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21  8:51   ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Add a per-thread core scheduling interface Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-21 13:47     ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 20:20       ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-05-22 12:59       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-22 21:35         ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-24 14:00           ` Phil Auld
2020-05-28 14:51             ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-28 17:01             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-28 18:17               ` Phil Auld
2020-05-28 18:34                 ` Phil Auld
2020-05-28 18:23               ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 18:31   ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-21 20:40     ` Joel Fernandes
2020-05-21 21:58       ` Jesse Barnes
2020-05-22 16:33         ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-20 22:37 ` [PATCH RFC v2] Add support for core-wide protection of IRQ and softirq Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-05-20 22:48 ` [PATCH RFC] sched: Use sched-RCU in core-scheduling balancing logic Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-05-21 22:52   ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-22  1:26     ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-25 20:12 ` [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5 Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-26  1:47   ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-26 14:36     ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2020-06-26 15:10       ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-26 15:12         ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-27 16:21         ` Joel Fernandes
2020-06-30 14:11         ` Phil Auld
2020-06-29 12:33   ` Li, Aubrey
2020-06-29 19:41     ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai

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=20200508123457.GA122180@aaronlu-desktop \
    --to=aaron.lwe@gmail.com \
    --cc=aaron.lu@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=aubrey.intel@gmail.com \
    --cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=jdesfossez@digitalocean.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kerrnel@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=naravamudan@digitalocean.com \
    --cc=pauld@redhat.com \
    --cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vpillai@digitalocean.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).