Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: avoid vruntime compensation for SCHED_IDLE task

[peterz@infradead.org]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 02:51:06PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 14:00, Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> >
> > Vruntime compensation has been down in place_entity() to
> > boot the waking procedure for fair tasks. There is no need to
> 
> s/boot/boost/ ?
> 
> > do that for SCHED_IDLE task actually.
> >
> > Not compensating vruntime for SCHED_IDLE task could make
> > SCHED_IDLE task more harmless for normal tasks.

This is rather week. It would be much better if there's some actual data
to support this claim.

> > Signed-off-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 1a68a0536add..adff77676a0a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -4115,7 +4115,7 @@ place_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int initial)
> >                 vruntime += sched_vslice(cfs_rq, se);
> >
> >         /* sleeps up to a single latency don't count. */
> > -       if (!initial) {
> > +       if (!initial && likely(!task_has_idle_policy(task_of(se)))) {
> 
> What if se is not a task ?

Then we very much need it, because it might have fair tasks inside. I
suppose you could do something complicated with idle_h_nr_running, but
is all that really worth the effort?

> >                 unsigned long thresh = sysctl_sched_latency;
> >
> >                 /*
> > --
> > 2.21.0
> >