From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
To: Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] sched/deadline: Fix reclaim inaccuracy with SMP
Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 10:06:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230515100616.33ba5dd9@luca64> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230515025716.316888-3-vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
Hi,
this patch is giving me some headaches:
On Sun, 14 May 2023 22:57:13 -0400
Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org> wrote:
[...]
> * Uextra: Extra bandwidth not reserved:
> - * = Umax - \Sum(u_i / #cpus in the root domain)
> + * = Umax - this_bw
While I agree that this setting should be OK, it ends up with
dq = -Uact / Umax * dt
which I remember I originally tried, and gave some issues
(I do not remember the details, but I think if you try N
identical reclaiming tasks, with N > M, the reclaimed time
is not distributed equally among them?)
I need to think a little bit more about this...
Luca
> * u_i: Bandwidth of an admitted dl task in the
> * root domain.
> *
> @@ -1286,22 +1286,14 @@ int dl_runtime_exceeded(struct
> sched_dl_entity *dl_se) */
> static u64 grub_reclaim(u64 delta, struct rq *rq, struct
> sched_dl_entity *dl_se) {
> - u64 u_act;
> - u64 u_inact = rq->dl.this_bw - rq->dl.running_bw; /* Utot -
> Uact */ -
> /*
> - * Instead of computing max{u, (rq->dl.max_bw - u_inact -
> u_extra)},
> - * we compare u_inact + rq->dl.extra_bw with
> - * rq->dl.max_bw - u, because u_inact + rq->dl.extra_bw can
> be larger
> - * than rq->dl.max_bw (so, rq->dl.max_bw - u_inact -
> rq->dl.extra_bw
> - * would be negative leading to wrong results)
> + * max{u, Umax - Uinact - Uextra}
> + * = max{u, max_bw - (this_bw - running_bw) + (this_bw -
> running_bw)}
> + * = max{u, running_bw} = running_bw
> + * So dq = -(max{u, Umax - Uinact - Uextra} / Umax) dt
> + * = -(running_bw / max_bw) dt
> */
> - if (u_inact + rq->dl.extra_bw > rq->dl.max_bw - dl_se->dl_bw)
> - u_act = dl_se->dl_bw;
> - else
> - u_act = rq->dl.max_bw - u_inact - rq->dl.extra_bw;
> -
> - return div64_u64(delta * u_act, rq->dl.max_bw);
> + return div64_u64(delta * rq->dl.running_bw, rq->dl.max_bw);
> }
>
> /*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-15 8:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-15 2:57 [PATCH v3 0/5] GRUB reclaiming fixes Vineeth Pillai
2023-05-15 2:57 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] sched/deadline: Fix bandwidth reclaim equation in GRUB Vineeth Pillai
2023-05-15 2:57 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] sched/deadline: Fix reclaim inaccuracy with SMP Vineeth Pillai
2023-05-15 8:06 ` luca abeni [this message]
2023-05-16 1:47 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-16 7:37 ` luca abeni
2023-05-16 15:08 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-16 16:19 ` luca abeni
2023-05-17 2:17 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-19 9:56 ` luca abeni
2023-05-19 10:18 ` luca abeni
2023-05-19 16:12 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-20 9:50 ` luca abeni
2023-05-20 9:58 ` luca abeni
2023-05-22 19:22 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-23 20:58 ` luca abeni
2023-05-24 2:11 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-26 14:54 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-26 15:18 ` luca abeni
2023-05-19 17:56 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-05-20 2:15 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-25 11:55 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-05-15 2:57 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] sched/deadline: Remove unused variable extra_bw Vineeth Pillai
2023-05-15 2:57 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] sched/deadline: Account for normal deadline tasks in GRUB Vineeth Pillai
2023-05-15 2:57 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] Documentation: sched/deadline: Update GRUB description Vineeth Pillai
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=20230515100616.33ba5dd9@luca64 \
--to=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--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 \
--cc=vineeth@bitbyteword.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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 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.