From: stanner@posteo.de
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hagen Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net>,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de
Subject: Re: SCHED_DEADLINE with CPU affinity
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:44:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3000986a52f2c961177c95289df69535@posteo.de> (raw)
Am 13.01.2020 10:22 schrieb Juri Lelli:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the delay in repling (Xmas + catching-up w/ emails).
No worries
>> I fear I have not understood quite well yet why this
>> "workaround" leads to (presumably) the same results as set_affinity
>> would. From what I have read, I understand it as follows: For
>> sched_dead, admission control tries to guarantee that the requested
>> policy can be executed. To do so, it analyzes the current workload
>> situation, taking especially the number of cores into account.
>>
>> Now, with a pre-configured set, the kernel knows which tasks will run
>> on which core, therefore it's able to judge wether a process can be
>> deadline scheduled or not. But when using the default way, you could
>> start your processes as SCHED_OTHER, set SCHED_DEADLINE as policy and
>> later many of them could suddenly call set_affinity, desiring to run
>> on
>> the same core, therefore provoking collisions.
>
> But setting affinity would still have to pass admission control, and
> should fail in the case you are describing (IIUC).
>
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/sched/core.c#L5433
Well, no, that's not what I meant.
I understand that the kernel currently rejects the combination of
set_affinity and
sched_setattr.
My question, basically is: Why does it work with exclusive cpu-sets?
As I wrote above, I assume that the difference is that the kernel knows
which
programs will run on which core beforehand and therefore can check the
rules of admission control, whereas without exclusive cpu_sets it could
happen
any time that certain (other) deadline applications decide to switch
cores manually,
causing collisions with a deadline task already running on this core.
You originally wrote that this solution is "currently" required; that's
why assume that
in theory the admission control check could also be done dynamically
when
sched_setattr or set_affinity are called (after each other, without
exclusive cpu sets).
Have I been clear enough now? Basically I want to know why
cpusets+sched_deadline
works whereas set_affinity+sched_deadline is rejected, although both
seem to lead
to the same result.
P.
next reply other threads:[~2020-01-14 9:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-14 9:44 stanner [this message]
2020-01-15 8:10 ` SCHED_DEADLINE with CPU affinity Juri Lelli
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-11-19 22:20 Philipp Stanner
2019-11-20 8:50 ` Juri Lelli
2019-12-24 10:03 ` Philipp Stanner
2020-01-13 9:22 ` Juri Lelli
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=3000986a52f2c961177c95289df69535@posteo.de \
--to=stanner@posteo.de \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=hagen@jauu.net \
--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 \
/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).