From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: 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, joel@joelfernandes.org, efault@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/17] sched/eevdf: Better handle mixed slice length
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 17:26:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtAkFBw5zt0+WK7dWBUE9OrbOOExG8ueUE6ogdCEQZhpXQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230328110354.562078801@infradead.org>
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 at 13:06, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> In the case where (due to latency-nice) there are different request
> sizes in the tree, the smaller requests tend to be dominated by the
> larger. Also note how the EEVDF lag limits are based on r_max.
>
> Therefore; add a heuristic that for the mixed request size case, moves
> smaller requests to placement strategy #2 which ensures they're
> immidiately eligible and and due to their smaller (virtual) deadline
> will cause preemption.
>
> NOTE: this relies on update_entity_lag() to impose lag limits above
> a single slice.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> kernel/sched/features.h | 1 +
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -616,6 +616,7 @@ avg_vruntime_add(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> s64 key = entity_key(cfs_rq, se);
>
> cfs_rq->avg_vruntime += key * weight;
> + cfs_rq->avg_slice += se->slice * weight;
> cfs_rq->avg_load += weight;
> }
>
> @@ -626,6 +627,7 @@ avg_vruntime_sub(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> s64 key = entity_key(cfs_rq, se);
>
> cfs_rq->avg_vruntime -= key * weight;
> + cfs_rq->avg_slice -= se->slice * weight;
> cfs_rq->avg_load -= weight;
> }
>
> @@ -4832,6 +4834,18 @@ place_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, stru
> lag = se->vlag;
>
> /*
> + * For latency sensitive tasks; those that have a shorter than
> + * average slice and do not fully consume the slice, transition
> + * to EEVDF placement strategy #2.
> + */
> + if (sched_feat(PLACE_FUDGE) &&
> + cfs_rq->avg_slice > se->slice * cfs_rq->avg_load) {
> + lag += vslice;
> + if (lag > 0)
> + lag = 0;
By using different lag policies for tasks, doesn't this create
unfairness between tasks ?
I wanted to stress this situation with a simple use case but it seems
that even without changing the slice, there is a fairness problem:
Task A always run
Task B loops on : running 1ms then sleeping 1ms
default nice and latency nice prio bot both
each task should get around 50% of the time.
The fairness is ok with tip/sched/core
but with eevdf, Task B only gets around 30%
I haven't identified the problem so far
> + }
> +
> + /*
> * If we want to place a task and preserve lag, we have to
> * consider the effect of the new entity on the weighted
> * average and compensate for this, otherwise lag can quickly
> --- a/kernel/sched/features.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/features.h
> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> * sleep+wake cycles. EEVDF placement strategy #1, #2 if disabled.
> */
> SCHED_FEAT(PLACE_LAG, true)
> +SCHED_FEAT(PLACE_FUDGE, true)
> SCHED_FEAT(PLACE_DEADLINE_INITIAL, true)
>
> /*
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -559,6 +559,7 @@ struct cfs_rq {
> unsigned int idle_h_nr_running; /* SCHED_IDLE */
>
> s64 avg_vruntime;
> + u64 avg_slice;
> u64 avg_load;
>
> u64 exec_clock;
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-31 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-28 9:26 [PATCH 00/17] sched: EEVDF using latency-nice Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 01/17] sched: Introduce latency-nice as a per-task attribute Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 02/17] sched/fair: Add latency_offset Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 03/17] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 04/17] sched/fair: Add avg_vruntime Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 23:57 ` Josh Don
2023-03-29 7:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-05 19:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 05/17] sched/fair: Remove START_DEBIT Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 06/17] sched/fair: Add lag based placement Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-03 9:18 ` Chen Yu
2023-04-05 9:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-06 3:03 ` Chen Yu
2023-04-13 15:42 ` Chen Yu
2023-04-13 15:55 ` Chen Yu
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 07/17] rbtree: Add rb_add_augmented_cached() helper Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 08/17] sched/fair: Implement an EEVDF like policy Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 1:26 ` Josh Don
2023-03-29 8:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 8:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 8:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 18:48 ` Josh Don
2023-03-29 8:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 18:54 ` Josh Don
2023-03-29 8:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 14:35 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-30 8:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-30 17:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-04-04 12:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 09/17] sched: Commit to lag based placement Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 10/17] sched/smp: Use lag to simplify cross-runqueue placement Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 11/17] sched: Commit to EEVDF Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 12/17] sched/debug: Rename min_granularity to base_slice Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 13/17] sched: Merge latency_offset into slice Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 14/17] sched/eevdf: Better handle mixed slice length Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-31 15:26 ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2023-04-04 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-04 13:50 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-04-05 5:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-04-05 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-05 20:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-04-14 11:18 ` Phil Auld
2023-04-16 5:10 ` Joel Fernandes
[not found] ` <20230401232355.336-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-04-02 2:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 15/17] [RFC] sched/eevdf: Sleeper bonus Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 9:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 16/17] [RFC] sched/eevdf: Minimal vavg option Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 17/17] [DEBUG] sched/eevdf: Debug / validation crud Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-03 7:42 ` [PATCH 00/17] sched: EEVDF using latency-nice Shrikanth Hegde
2023-04-10 3:13 ` David Vernet
2023-04-11 2:09 ` David Vernet
[not found] ` <20230410082307.1327-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-04-11 10:15 ` Mike Galbraith
[not found] ` <20230411133333.1790-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-04-11 14:56 ` Mike Galbraith
[not found] ` <20230412025042.1413-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-04-12 4:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-04-25 12:32 ` Phil Auld
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=CAKfTPtAkFBw5zt0+WK7dWBUE9OrbOOExG8ueUE6ogdCEQZhpXQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=chris.hyser@oracle.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=timj@gnu.org \
--cc=youssefesmat@chromium.org \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.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).