From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>,
tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@elte.hu, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
mbligh@mbligh.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: fix interactive ceiling code
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 04:02:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1148004177.8422.6.camel@homer> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200605191130.59282.kernel@kolivas.org>
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 11:30 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Ingo, Andrew, I think these are minor logic fixes and comments that correct
> a patch that has already been pushed to 2.6.17- and I would like them short
> circuited to mainline if everyone is comfortable with it.
>
> Ken, Mike can I ask you to put a signed off on this patch for your
> contributions please?
Done.
(I hope nobody ever rolls a patch from 30 contributors;)
> Martin can I please ask for this to be put on test.kernel.org as a last
> minute sanity check? I know URLs are easier so here is the patch for 2.6.17-rc4:
> http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/crap/sched-fix_interactive_ceiling.patch
>
> ---
> The relationship between INTERACTIVE_SLEEP and the ceiling is not perfect
> and not explicit enough. The sleep boost is not supposed to be any larger
> than without this code and the comment is not clear enough about what exactly
> it does, just the reason it does it. Fix it.
>
> There is a ceiling to the priority beyond which tasks that only ever sleep
> for very long periods cannot surpass. Fix it.
>
> Prevent the on-runqueue bonus logic from defeating the idle sleep logic.
>
> Opportunity to micro-optimise.
>
> Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc4/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc4.orig/kernel/sched.c 2006-05-19 11:25:01.000000000 +1000
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc4/kernel/sched.c 2006-05-19 11:25:14.000000000 +1000
> @@ -731,33 +731,35 @@ static inline void __activate_idle_task(
> static int recalc_task_prio(task_t *p, unsigned long long now)
> {
> /* Caller must always ensure 'now >= p->timestamp' */
> - unsigned long long __sleep_time = now - p->timestamp;
> - unsigned long sleep_time;
> + unsigned long sleep_time = now - p->timestamp;
>
> if (batch_task(p))
> sleep_time = 0;
> - else {
> - if (__sleep_time > NS_MAX_SLEEP_AVG)
> - sleep_time = NS_MAX_SLEEP_AVG;
> - else
> - sleep_time = (unsigned long)__sleep_time;
> - }
>
> if (likely(sleep_time > 0)) {
> /*
> - * User tasks that sleep a long time are categorised as
> - * idle. They will only have their sleep_avg increased to a
> - * level that makes them just interactive priority to stay
> - * active yet prevent them suddenly becoming cpu hogs and
> - * starving other processes.
> + * This ceiling is set to the lowest priority that would allow
> + * a task to be reinserted into the active array on timeslice
> + * completion.
> */
> - if (p->mm && sleep_time > INTERACTIVE_SLEEP(p)) {
> - unsigned long ceiling;
> + unsigned long ceiling = INTERACTIVE_SLEEP(p);
>
> - ceiling = JIFFIES_TO_NS(MAX_SLEEP_AVG -
> - DEF_TIMESLICE);
> - if (p->sleep_avg < ceiling)
> - p->sleep_avg = ceiling;
> + if (p->mm && sleep_time > ceiling && p->sleep_avg < ceiling) {
> + /*
> + * Prevents user tasks from achieving best priority
> + * with one single large enough sleep.
> + */
> + p->sleep_avg = ceiling;
> + /*
> + * Using INTERACTIVE_SLEEP() as a ceiling places a
> + * nice(0) task 1ms sleep away from promotion, and
> + * gives it 700ms to round-robin with no chance of
> + * being demoted. This is more than generous, so
> + * mark this sleep as non-interactive to prevent the
> + * on-runqueue bonus logic from intervening should
> + * this task not receive cpu immediately.
> + */
> + p->sleep_type = SLEEP_NONINTERACTIVE;
> } else {
> /*
> * Tasks waking from uninterruptible sleep are
> @@ -765,12 +767,12 @@ static int recalc_task_prio(task_t *p, u
> * are likely to be waiting on I/O
> */
> if (p->sleep_type == SLEEP_NONINTERACTIVE && p->mm) {
> - if (p->sleep_avg >= INTERACTIVE_SLEEP(p))
> + if (p->sleep_avg >= ceiling)
> sleep_time = 0;
> else if (p->sleep_avg + sleep_time >=
> - INTERACTIVE_SLEEP(p)) {
> - p->sleep_avg = INTERACTIVE_SLEEP(p);
> - sleep_time = 0;
> + ceiling) {
> + p->sleep_avg = ceiling;
> + sleep_time = 0;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -784,9 +786,9 @@ static int recalc_task_prio(task_t *p, u
> */
> p->sleep_avg += sleep_time;
>
> - if (p->sleep_avg > NS_MAX_SLEEP_AVG)
> - p->sleep_avg = NS_MAX_SLEEP_AVG;
> }
> + if (p->sleep_avg > NS_MAX_SLEEP_AVG)
> + p->sleep_avg = NS_MAX_SLEEP_AVG;
> }
>
> return effective_prio(p);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-05-19 3:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-05-08 23:18 Regression seen for patch "sched:dont decrease idle sleep avg" Tim Chen
2006-05-09 0:43 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-09 1:07 ` Martin Bligh
2006-05-12 0:04 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-05-13 12:27 ` Andrew Morton
2006-05-13 13:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-05-14 16:03 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-15 19:01 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-05-15 23:45 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-16 1:22 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-05-16 1:44 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-16 4:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-05-16 23:32 ` Tim Chen
2006-05-17 4:25 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-05-17 4:45 ` Peter Williams
2006-05-17 5:24 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-05-17 8:23 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-17 9:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-05-17 10:25 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-17 11:42 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-05-17 12:46 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-17 13:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-05-17 15:10 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-17 17:21 ` Ray Lee
2006-05-17 19:33 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-05-18 0:35 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-18 1:10 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-05-18 1:38 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-18 5:44 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-05-18 5:52 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-18 7:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-05-18 12:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-05-19 1:10 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-18 23:17 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-05-19 1:30 ` [PATCH] sched: fix interactive ceiling code Con Kolivas
2006-05-19 2:02 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2006-05-19 9:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-05-19 14:37 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-05-19 16:19 ` tim_c_chen
2006-05-18 23:34 ` Regression seen for patch "sched:dont decrease idle sleep avg" Chen, Kenneth W
2006-05-19 1:07 ` Con Kolivas
2006-05-16 4:07 ` Mike Galbraith
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=1148004177.8422.6.camel@homer \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@mbligh.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.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