Re: [PATCH 14/17] sched/eevdf: Better handle mixed slice length

From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	bristot@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, qyousef@layalina.io,
	chris.hyser@oracle.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
	pjt@google.com, pavel@ucw.cz, qperret@google.com,
	tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, joshdon@google.com, timj@gnu.org,
	kprateek.nayak@amd.com, yu.c.chen@intel.com,
	youssefesmat@chromium.org, efault@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/17] sched/eevdf: Better handle mixed slice length
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 16:05:55 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YQmG83_Yb9JgXapt9RgAs4m=fHnrOKRqfG9N_VMYcA88A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230405083543.GZ4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 4:36 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 01:50:50PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:29:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Heh, this is actually the correct behaviour. If you have a u=1 and a
> > > u=.5 task, you should distribute time on a 2:1 basis, eg. 67% vs 33%.
> >
> > Splitting like that sounds like starvation of the sleeper to me. If something
> > sleeps a lot, it will get even less CPU time on an average than it would if
> > there was no contention from the u=1 task.
>
> No, sleeping, per definition, means you're not contending for CPU. What
> CFS does, giving them a little boost, is strictly yuck and messes with
> latency -- because suddenly you have a task that said it wasn't
> competing appear as if it were, but you didn't run it (how could you, it
> wasn't there to run) -- but it still needs to catch up.
>
> The reason it does that, is mostly because at the time we didn't want to
> do the whole lag thing -- it's somewhat heavy on the u64 mults and 32bit
> computing was still a thing :/ So hacks happened.

Also you have the whole "boost tasks" that sleep a lot with CFS right?
 Like a task handling user input sleeps a lot, but when it wakes up,
it gets higher dynamic priority as its vruntime did not advance. I
guess EEVDF also gets you the same thing but still messes with the CPU
usage?

> That said; I'm starting to regret not pushing the EEVDF thing harder
> back in 2010 when I first wrote it :/
>
> > And also CGroups will be even more weird than it already is in such a world,
> > 2 different containers will not get CPU time distributed properly- say if
> > tasks in one container sleep a lot and tasks in another container are CPU
> > bound.
>
> Cgroups are an abomination anyway :-) /me runs like hell. But no, I
> don't actually expect too much trouble there.

So, with 2 equally weighted containers, if one has a task that sleeps
50% of the time, and another has a 100% task, then the sleeper will
only run 33% of the time? I can see people running containers having a
problem with that (a customer running one container gets less CPU than
the other.). Sorry if I missed something.

But yeah I do find the whole EEVDF idea interesting but I admit I have
to research it more.

 - Joel