All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] sched: don't consider upper se in sched_slice()
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 13:08:20 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130401040820.GA12015@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51553EF5.90702@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Hello, Preeti.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:42:53PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Joonsoo,
> 
> On 03/28/2013 01:28 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Following-up upper se in sched_slice() should not be done,
> > because sched_slice() is used for checking that resched is needed
> > whithin *this* cfs_rq and there is one problem related to this
> > in current implementation.
> > 
> > The problem is that if we follow-up upper se in sched_slice(), it is
> > possible that we get a ideal slice which is lower than
> > sysctl_sched_min_granularity.
> > 
> > For example, we assume that we have 4 tg which is attached to root tg
> > with same share and each one have 20 runnable tasks on cpu0, respectivly.
> > In this case, __sched_period() return sysctl_sched_min_granularity * 20
> > and then go into loop. At first iteration, we compute a portion of slice
> > for this task on this cfs_rq, so get a slice, sysctl_sched_min_granularity.
> > Afterward, we enter second iteration and get a slice which is a quarter of
> > sysctl_sched_min_granularity, because there is 4 tgs with same share
> > in that cfs_rq.
> > 
> > Ensuring slice larger than min_granularity is important for performance
> > and there is no lower bound about this, except timer tick, we should
> > fix it not to consider upper se when calculating sched_slice.
> > 
> 
> I am assuming the sysctl_sched_latency = 20ms and
> sysctl_sched_min_granularity = 4ms.
> In that case:
> 
> With your patch, the sum of the sched_slice(runnable_task) on each_tg is
>  40ms = sched_min_granularity * 10, while the parent tg has a
> sched_slice of sysctl_sched_latency / 4 = (20 / 4) = 5ms.
> 
> Ideally the children's cpu share must add upto the parent's share.
>

I don't think so.

We should schedule out the parent tg if 5ms is over. As we do so, we can
fairly distribute time slice to every tg within short term. If we add
the children's cpu share upto the parent's, the parent tg may have
large time slice, so it cannot be preempted easily. There may be a latency
problem if there are many tgs.

Thanks.

> 
> Thank you
> 
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  reply	other threads:[~2013-04-01  4:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-03-28  7:58 [PATCH 0/5] optimization, clean-up, correctness about fair.c Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-28  7:58 ` [PATCH 1/5] sched: remove one division operation in find_buiest_queue() Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-28  7:58 ` [PATCH 2/5] sched: factor out code to should_we_balance() Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-29 11:45   ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-01  5:10     ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-29 11:58   ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-01  5:16     ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-02  8:10   ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-02  9:50     ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-02 10:00       ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-02 10:29         ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-04  0:55           ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-28  7:58 ` [PATCH 3/5] sched: clean-up struct sd_lb_stat Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-28  7:58 ` [PATCH 4/5] sched: don't consider upper se in sched_slice() Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-29  7:12   ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-01  4:08     ` Joonsoo Kim [this message]
2013-04-01  7:06       ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-02  2:25         ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-02  2:35           ` Mike Galbraith
2013-04-02  9:35             ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-02  4:55           ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-02  9:26             ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-02 17:32               ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-04  0:42                 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-04  6:48                   ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-05  2:06                     ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-28  7:58 ` [PATCH 5/5] sched: limit sched_slice if it is more than sysctl_sched_latency Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-29 11:35   ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-01  5:09     ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-01  6:45       ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-02  2:02         ` Joonsoo Kim

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=20130401040820.GA12015@lge.com \
    --to=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.