linux-doc.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 1/2] sched/deadline: accurate reclaim bandwidth for GRUB
Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 13:25:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230509132534.09098acc@luca64> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230508160829.2756405-1-vineeth@bitbyteword.org>

Hi,

if I understand well, your patch addresses 2 separate issues:
1) The current reclaiming code uses an approximation to avoid using
   div64_u64(), which might introduce too much overhead (at least, as
   far as I remember :). Your patch changes it to use the exact,
   non-approximated, equation
2) Currently, the reclaimable CPU time is divided as if all the
   SCHED_DEADLINE tasks (and not only the SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM tasks)
   could use it; your patch changes the code to distribute the
   reclaimable CPU time only to tasks having the SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM
   flag set

Is this understanding correct?
If using div64_u64() does not introduce too much overhead, then I agree
with the first change.
The second change also looks good to me.

I have no comments on the code, but there is one thing in the comments
that looks misleading to me (or I am misunderstanding the code or the
comments):

On Mon,  8 May 2023 12:08:28 -0400
Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org> wrote:
[...]

> + *	"dq = -(Ureclaim / Umax_reclaim) * dt"
> + * Where
> + *	Ureclaim:	Active Bandwidth of SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM tasks for this rq.
> + *	Umax_reclaim:	Maximum reclaimable bandwidth for this rq.
> + *
> + * We can calculate Umax_reclaim as:
> + *	Umax_reclaim:	this_bw + Uinact + Ureclaim

I think this looks like a typo (summing this_bw to Uinact
looks wrong). Should "this_bw" be Uextra?

> + * Where:
> + *	this_bw:	Reserved bandwidth for this runqueue.
> + *	Ureclaim:	Active Bandwidth of SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM tasks for this rq.
> + *	Uinact:		Inactive utilization (this_bw - running_bw)
> + *	Uextra:		Extra bandwidth(Usually Umax - this_bw)
> + *	Umax:		Max usable bandwidth. Currently
> + *			= sched_rt_runtime_us / sched_rt_period_us
> + *
> + * We use the above formula to scale the runtime down
> + *
> + *	dq = -(Ureclaim / Umax_reclaim) * dt
> + *	   = -(Ureclaim / (Ureclaim + Uextra + Uinact)) * dt

I think this should be the correct equation. BTW, since you are summing
Uextra and Uinact, mabe you could just use "Umax - running_bw"?



			Luca

>   */
>  static u64 grub_reclaim(u64 delta, struct rq *rq, struct
> sched_dl_entity *dl_se) {
> +	u64 scaled_delta;
>  	u64 u_inact = rq->dl.this_bw - rq->dl.running_bw; /* Utot -
> Uact */
> -	u64 u_act;
> -	u64 u_act_min = (dl_se->dl_bw * rq->dl.bw_ratio) >>
> RATIO_SHIFT;
> +	u64 reclaimable_bw = rq->dl.extra_bw + u_inact;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Instead of computing max{u * bw_ratio, (1 - u_inact -
> u_extra)},
> -	 * we compare u_inact + rq->dl.extra_bw with
> -	 * 1 - (u * rq->dl.bw_ratio >> RATIO_SHIFT), because
> -	 * u_inact + rq->dl.extra_bw can be larger than
> -	 * 1 * (so, 1 - u_inact - rq->dl.extra_bw would be negative
> -	 * leading to wrong results)
> -	 */
> -	if (u_inact + rq->dl.extra_bw > BW_UNIT - u_act_min)
> -		u_act = u_act_min;
> -	else
> -		u_act = BW_UNIT - u_inact - rq->dl.extra_bw;
> +	if (reclaimable_bw > rq->dl.max_bw)
> +		reclaimable_bw = rq->dl.max_bw;
>  
> -	return (delta * u_act) >> BW_SHIFT;
> +	scaled_delta = div64_u64(delta * rq->dl.reclaim_bw,
> +			    (rq->dl.reclaim_bw + reclaimable_bw));
> +	return scaled_delta;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -2783,12 +2797,9 @@ int sched_dl_global_validate(void)
>  static void init_dl_rq_bw_ratio(struct dl_rq *dl_rq)
>  {
>  	if (global_rt_runtime() == RUNTIME_INF) {
> -		dl_rq->bw_ratio = 1 << RATIO_SHIFT;
> -		dl_rq->extra_bw = 1 << BW_SHIFT;
> +		dl_rq->max_bw = dl_rq->extra_bw = 1 << BW_SHIFT;
>  	} else {
> -		dl_rq->bw_ratio = to_ratio(global_rt_runtime(),
> -			  global_rt_period()) >> (BW_SHIFT -
> RATIO_SHIFT);
> -		dl_rq->extra_bw = to_ratio(global_rt_period(),
> +		dl_rq->max_bw = dl_rq->extra_bw =
> to_ratio(global_rt_period(), global_rt_runtime());
>  	}
>  }
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index 3e8df6d31c1e..13d85af0f42b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -257,6 +257,11 @@ static inline bool dl_entity_is_special(const
> struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se) #endif
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool dl_entity_is_reclaim(const struct sched_dl_entity
> *dl_se) +{
> +	return dl_se->flags & SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Tells if entity @a should preempt entity @b.
>   */
> @@ -754,10 +759,20 @@ struct dl_rq {
>  	u64			extra_bw;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Inverse of the fraction of CPU utilization that can be
> reclaimed
> -	 * by the GRUB algorithm.
> +	 * Maximum available bandwidth for this runqueue. This is
> used to
> +	 * calculate reclaimable bandwidth for SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM
> tasks.
> +	 * By restricting maximum usable bandwidth, we aim to give
> other
> +	 * tasks on lower classes a chance to run, when competing
> with
> +	 * SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM tasks.
>  	 */
> -	u64			bw_ratio;
> +	u64			max_bw;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Active bandwidth of SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM tasks on this rq.
> +	 * This will be a subset of running_bw.
> +	 */
> +	u64			reclaim_bw;
> +
>  };
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED


  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-05-09 11:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-08 16:08 [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: accurate reclaim bandwidth for GRUB Vineeth Pillai
2023-05-08 16:08 ` [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: sched/deadline: Update GRUB description Vineeth Pillai
2023-05-10  8:05   ` Bagas Sanjaya
2023-05-09 11:25 ` luca abeni [this message]
2023-05-09 19:29   ` [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: accurate reclaim bandwidth for GRUB Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-09 20:48     ` luca abeni
2023-05-09 20:54       ` luca abeni
2023-05-10  3:53         ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-10  7:07           ` luca abeni
2023-05-10 15:50             ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-11  7:37               ` luca abeni
2023-05-11 18:34                 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-11 20:03                   ` luca abeni
2023-05-11 20:40                     ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2023-05-15  2:56                       ` Vineeth Remanan 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=20230509132534.09098acc@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 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).