Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] sched/deadline: Fix reclaim inaccuracy with SMP

[luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>]

Hi,

On Fri, 19 May 2023 12:12:50 -0400
Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org> wrote:
[...]
> With both these equations, it doesn't solve couple of other issues we
> had discussed before:
> - tasks with different bandwidth reclaims differently even when #tasks
>   is less than #cpus.

I think I now understand this issue (see below)


> - cpu util may go to 100% when we have tasks with large bandwidth
> close to Umax

This one is still not clear to me... I'll do some more analysis.


> As an eg. for issue 1, three tasks - (7,10) (3,10) and (1,10):
> TID[590]: RECLAIM=1, (r=7ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 95.20
> TID[591]: RECLAIM=1, (r=3ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 81.94
> TID[592]: RECLAIM=1, (r=1ms, d=10ms, p=10ms), Util: 27.19

So, the issue here is that GRUB tries to assign the reclaimed
utilization proportionally to the task's utilizations... So, 591 should
execute 3 times the amount of time executed by 592, and 590 should
execute 7 times the amount of time executed by 592. Task 592 is then
supposed to execute for 95 / (1 + 3 + 7) = 95 / 11 = 8.63% of the CPU
time; task 591 is supposed to execute for 8.63 * 3 = 25.9% of the CPU
time; task 590 is supposed to execute for 8.63 * 7 = 60.64% of the CPU
time.

So, 592 executes for 8.63 * 3 = 25.9% of the time on one single CPU
(you measured 27.19, but this is nead), task 591 executes for
25.9 * 3 = 77.72% of the time on one single CPU (again, this is
close to what you measured) and task 590 should execute for...
60.64 * 3 = 181.3% of the time on one single CPU! Which is clearly not
possible... And the "max{}" rule cuts this to 95%.

So, we are wasting 181.3 - 95 = 86.3% of CPU time, which 590 cannot
reclaim (because it cannot execute simultaneously on 2 CPUs).

And this is close to the amount of CPU time not reclaimed in the test
you cite above (95 - 81 + 95 - 27)


Now that the problem is more clear to me, I am trying to understand a
possible solution (as you mention, moving some extra bandwidth from the
590's CPU will fix this problem... But I am not sure if this dynamic
extra bandwidth migration is feasible in practice without introducing
too much overhead)

I'll look better at your new proposal.


			Thanks,
				Luca