From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m16.mail.126.com (m16.mail.126.com [117.135.210.7]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D501017C7CA for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:46:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=117.135.210.7 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718106402; cv=none; b=YLeJlRm5W82oKBrX5PnW2irI4auzfzbPXRbICJ3G92+fFgYOAxpjtSi5onWK4EaLQC0XOCpBVb2bi43Nn0OjFDlNr0SulVGWpHiMz/FwgRFnoHj5EhRWIuYiNvmJzjnZ3WOOkR88GlyKiK8wftvY0FOyypeM3fEqBTAvnxkpRvs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718106402; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4Iw4fKsDc/U0YUlAj9b61PaJoo45yzZofCFRy/INvHQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Y7gXTncgY54x16wzWWZrkBqKNApOxaxYYdDsMZVfxd6wUVVpeSdAUGIxDLpv6KXLksdcR00VEcSqfwyaWx6sxPO+gPJ6PEdGREAfND1y3YvwMyfDwnWwsQTq6CCB8Szm0gWd45hn7n0BNy2ofiKb1FtJl54DHL18gescz7GXZKY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=126.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=126.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=126.com header.i=@126.com header.b=ZWat7ZHm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=117.135.210.7 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=126.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=126.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=126.com header.i=@126.com header.b="ZWat7ZHm" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=126.com; s=s110527; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From: Content-Type; bh=/RlQz+7UKTdFqSfL5oJg7kZuSi4+tMMNoJuBh5KXON8=; b=ZWat7ZHmIlqfR/pMSbiA+WcrAPKPN8Ctg2T10SwHLin8Y644FdQnzS+nF8QDPG APbmkd/18wVax0hlyq0vhlWffbXD6NXyZbeOt8RmfqoSNYrDH14zzCf2XyQlr1zv JuD6tRbae7p18Sm8LykON8RAXRwoSs1NjTsVoc6617irM= Received: from [172.24.140.37] (unknown [111.204.182.99]) by gzga-smtp-mta-g1-5 (Coremail) with SMTP id _____wDnj_Z+N2hmp0mlDQ--.43517S2; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:39:45 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:39:42 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Reschedule the cfs_rq when current is ineligible To: Chunxin Zang Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chen Yu , yangchen11@lixiang.com, Jerry Zhou , Chunxin Zang , mingo@redhat.com, Peter Zijlstra , juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org References: <20240524134011.270861-1-spring.cxz@gmail.com> <572bef0a-727c-4922-93e9-ad29c385120e@126.com> <6AF97701-B8F4-46C6-851E-A8BACE97E8C0@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Honglei Wang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CM-TRANSID:_____wDnj_Z+N2hmp0mlDQ--.43517S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvJXoW7Ww45ZrW8WFyrWr1rWr13XFb_yoW8AF47pr ZxX3WFyw1DC3Z7Ja1Iq3y2qryIyF4fAFZrJryvkry7KanxC3W0gFyfCF43CF9F9F4F9wn0 v3s8Aw17AryDZa7anT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDUYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07UC_M-UUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: 5mdpv2pkrqwzphlzt0bj6rjloofrz/1tbiJAb6rWW-Py04fQAAs4 On 2024/6/6 20:39, Chunxin Zang wrote: > > Hi honglei > > Recently, I conducted testing of multiple cgroups using version 2. Version 2 ensures the > RUN_TO_PARITY feature, so the test results are somewhat better under the > NO_RUN_TO_PARITY feature. > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240529141806.16029-1-spring.cxz@gmail.com/T/ > > The testing environment I used still employed 4 cores, 4 groups of hackbench (160 processes) > and 1 cyclictest. If too many cgroups or processes are created on the 4 cores, the test > results will fluctuate severely, making it difficult to discern any differences. > > The organization of cgroups was in two forms: > 1. Within the same level cgroup, 10 sub-cgroups were created, with each cgroup having > an average of 16 processes. > > EEVDF PATCH EEVDF-NO_PARITY PATCH-NO_PARITY > > LNICE(-19) # Avg Latencies: 00572 00347 00502 00218 > > LNICE(0) # Avg Latencies: 02262 02225 02442 02321 > > LNICE(19) # Avg Latencies: 03132 03422 03333 03489 > > 2. In the form of a binary tree, 8 leaf cgroups were established, with a depth of 4. > On average, each cgroup had 20 processes > > EEVDF PATCH EEVDF-NO_PARITY PATCH-NO_PARITY > > LNICE(-19) # Avg Latencies: 00601 00592 00510 00400 > > LNICE(0) # Avg Latencies: 02703 02170 02381 02126 > > LNICE(19) # Avg Latencies: 04773 03387 04478 03611 > > Based on the test results, there is a noticeable improvement in scheduling latency after > applying the patch in scenarios involving multiple cgroups. > > > thanks > Chunxin > Hi Chunxin, Thanks for sharing the test result. It looks helpful at least in this cgroups scenario. I'm still curious which point of the two changes helps more in your test, just as mentioned at the very first mail of this thread. Thanks, Honglei