linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Oleg Rombakh <olegrom@google.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: cgroup SCHED_IDLE support
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:06:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f48b5233-ce60-7e1a-02e6-1bfbcc852271@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABk29NtVRG8cotfbK=R0kKXuKCnkEG514H=6ncri=CM8Qr9uiQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/06/2021 01:34, Josh Don wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 9:43 AM Dietmar Eggemann
> <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/06/2021 21:14, Josh Don wrote:
>>> Hey Dietmar,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 5:53 AM Dietmar Eggemann
>>> <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Any reason why this should only work on cgroup-v2?
>>>
>>> My (perhaps incorrect) assumption that new development should not
>>> extend v1. I'd actually prefer making this work on v1 as well; I'll
>>> add that support.
>>>
>>>> struct cftype cpu_legacy_files[] vs. cpu_files[]
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -11340,10 +11408,14 @@ void init_tg_cfs_entry(struct task_group *tg, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
>>>>>
>>>>>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(shares_mutex);
>>>>>
>>>>> -int sched_group_set_shares(struct task_group *tg, unsigned long shares)
>>>>> +#define IDLE_WEIGHT sched_prio_to_weight[ARRAY_SIZE(sched_prio_to_weight) - 1]
>>>>
>>>> Why not 3 ? Like for tasks (WEIGHT_IDLEPRIO)?
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Went back and forth on this; on second look, I do think it makes sense
>>> to use the IDLEPRIO weight of 3 here. This gets converted to a 0,
>>> rather than a 1 for display of cpu.weight, which is also actually a
>>> nice property.
>>
>> I'm struggling to see the benefit here.
>>
>> For a taskgroup A: Why setting A/cpu.idle=1 to force a minimum A->shares
>> when you can set it directly via A/cpu.weight (to 1 (minimum))?
>>
>> WEIGHT     cpu.weight   tg->shares
>>
>> 3          0            3072
>>
>> 15         1            15360
>>
>>            1            10240
>>
>> `A/cpu.weight` follows cgroup-v2's `weights` `resource distribution
>> model`* but I can only see `A/cpu.idle` as a layer on top of it forcing
>> `A/cpu.weight` to get its minimum value?
>>
>> *Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> 
> Setting cpu.idle carries additional properties in addition to just the
> weight. Currently, it primarily includes (a) special wakeup preemption
> handling, and (b) contribution to idle_h_nr_running for the purpose of
> marking a cpu as a sched_idle_cpu(). Essentially, the current
> SCHED_IDLE mechanics. I've also discussed with Peter a potential
> extension to SCHED_IDLE to manipulate vruntime.

Right, I forgot about (b).

But IMHO, (a) could be handled with this special tg->shares value for
SCHED_IDLE.

If there would be a way to open up `cpu.weight`, `cpu.weight.nice` (and
`cpu,shares` for v1) to take a special value for SCHED_IDLE, then you
won't need cpu.idle.
And you could handle the functionality from sched_group_set_idle()
directly in sched_group_set_shares().
In this case sched_group_set_shares() wouldn't have to be rejected on an
idle tg.
A tg would just become !idle by writing a different cpu.weight value.
Currently, if you !idle a tg it gets the default NICE_0_LOAD.


I guess cpu.weight [1, 10000] would be easy, 0 could be taken for that
and mapped into weight = WEIGHT_IDLEPRIO (3, 3072) to call
sched_group_set_shares(..., scale_load(weight).
cpu.weight = 1 maps to (10, 10240)

cpu.weight.nice [-20, 19] would be already more complicated, 20?

And for cpu.shares [2, 2 << 18] 0 could be used. The issue here is that
WEIGHT_IDLEPRIO (3, 3072) is a valid value already for shares.

> We set the cgroup weight here, since by definition SCHED_IDLE entities
> have the least scheduling weight. From the perspective of your
> question, the analogous statement for tasks would be that we set task
> weight to the min when doing setsched(SCHED_IDLE), even though we
> already have a renice mechanism.

I agree. `cpu.idle = 1` is like setting the task policy to SCHED_IDLE.
And there is even the `cpu.weight.nice` to support the `task - tg`
analogy on nice values.

I'm just wondering if integrating this into `cpu.weight` and friends
would be better to make the code behind this easier to grasp.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-15 10:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-08 23:11 [PATCH] sched: cgroup SCHED_IDLE support Josh Don
2021-06-10 12:53 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-06-10 19:14   ` Josh Don
2021-06-11 16:43     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-06-11 23:34       ` Josh Don
2021-06-15 10:06         ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2021-06-15 23:30           ` Josh Don
2021-06-25  9:24           ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-16 15:42 ` Tejun Heo
2021-06-17  1:01   ` Josh Don
2021-06-26  9:57     ` Tejun Heo
2021-06-29  4:57       ` Josh Don
2021-06-25  8:08   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-26 10:06     ` Tejun Heo
2021-06-26 11:42     ` Rik van Riel
2021-06-25  8:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-26  0:18   ` Josh Don
2021-06-25  8:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-26  0:35   ` Josh Don

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=f48b5233-ce60-7e1a-02e6-1bfbcc852271@arm.com \
    --to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=joshdon@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=olegrom@google.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=steven.sistare@oracle.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@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).