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 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);
>  }
>  
>  /*


  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 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).