From: tim_c_chen@linux.intel.com
To: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
Cc: "'Con Kolivas'" <kernel@kolivas.org>,
"Mike Galbraith" <efault@gmx.de>,
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 09:19:42 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1256.10.3.236.210.1148055582.squirrel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4t16i2$14qld0@orsmga001.jf.intel.com>
The patch did recover the 4% regression for Volanomark which started the
whole thread in the first place.
Tim
> Con Kolivas wrote on Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:31 PM
>> 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?
>
> Yup, looks good. Thanks for all the explanation and certainly your
> patience.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ken Chen <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
>
>
>
>> ---
>> 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>
>>
>> ---
>> 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);
>> --
>> -ck
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-05-19 16:19 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
2006-05-19 9:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-05-19 14:37 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-05-19 16:19 ` tim_c_chen [this message]
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=1256.10.3.236.210.1148055582.squirrel@linux.intel.com \
--to=tim_c_chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--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