From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:06:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1284282392.2251.81.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=a91QX-FLURFWNsjbCS1bDLr6GqSpC4_uzm3ta@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 13:48 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> >From what I can make up:
> >
> > LAT=`cat /proc/sys/kernel/sched_latency_ns`;
> > echo $((LAT/8)) > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_min_granularity_ns
> >
> > will give you pretty much the same result as Mathieu's patch.
>
> Or perhaps not. The point being that Mathieu's patch seems to do this
> dynamically based on number of runnable threads per cpu. Which seems
> to be a good idea.
>
> IOW, this part:
>
> - if (delta_exec < sysctl_sched_min_granularity)
> + if (delta_exec < __sched_gran(cfs_rq->nr_running))
>
> seems to be a rather fundamental change, and looks at least
> potentially interesting. It seems to make conceptual sense to take the
> number of running tasks into account at that point, no?
We used to have something like that a long while back, we nixed it
because of the division and replaced it with floor(__sched_gran) (ie.
the smallest value it would ever give).
Smaller values are better for latency, larger values are better for
throughput. So introducing __sched_gran() in order to provide larger
values doesn't make sense to me.
> And I don't like how you dismissed the measured latency improvement.
> And yes, I do think latency matters. A _lot_.
OK, we'll make it better and sacrifice some throughput, can do, no
problem.
> And no, I'm not saying that Mathieu's patch is necessarily good. I
> haven't tried it myself. I don't have _that_ kind of opinion. The
> opinion I do have is that I think it's sad how you dismissed things
> out of hand - and seem to _continue_ to dismiss them without
> apparently actually having looked at the patch at all.
Let me draw you a picture of what this patch looks like to me:
* is slice length, + is period length
Patch (sched_latency = 10, sched_min_gran = 10/3)
30 | +
|
|
| +
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 | * + + + + + + +
|
|
|
|
| *
|
| * * * * * * * *
| * *
| * *
0 +---------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Normal (sched_latency = 10, sched_min_gran = 10/3)
30 | +
|
|
| +
|
|
|
| +
|
|
20 | +
|
|
| +
|
|
|
| +
|
|
10 | * + +
|
|
|
|
| *
|
| * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
|
0 +---------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Normal (sched_latency = 10, sched_min_gran = 10/8)
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
| +
| +
| +
|
| +
10 | * + + + + + + +
|
|
|
|
| *
|
| * *
| * *
| * * * * * * * *
0 +---------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-12 9:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-11 17:37 [RFC patch 0/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-11 17:37 ` [RFC patch 1/2] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-11 18:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-11 19:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-11 20:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-11 20:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-11 20:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-12 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-11 20:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-12 9:06 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-09-12 9:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-12 20:39 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-12 20:34 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 12:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 4:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 8:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 11:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 13:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-09-13 13:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 14:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 14:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-11 20:52 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-11 19:57 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-12 10:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-12 20:37 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 12:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 13:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 13:56 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 14:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 14:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-09-13 15:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 15:39 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-09-13 16:16 ` [RFC PATCH] check_preempt_tick should not compare vruntime with wall time Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 16:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-13 17:45 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 17:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-13 18:01 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 18:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-09-13 18:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 18:19 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 18:23 ` [PATCH] sched: Improve latencies under load by decreasing minimum scheduling granularity Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 18:28 ` Joe Perches
2010-09-13 19:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-09-13 20:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 18:19 ` [RFC PATCH] check_preempt_tick should not compare vruntime with wall time Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 17:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 17:56 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-14 2:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 14:44 ` [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running Mike Galbraith
[not found] ` <1284386179.10436.6.camel@marge.simson.net>
2010-09-13 15:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 18:04 ` [RFC][PATCH] sched: Improve tick preemption Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-14 2:27 ` [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running Mike Galbraith
2010-09-12 6:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-12 7:21 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-12 18:16 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 4:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 6:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-13 7:08 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 7:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 9:16 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 9:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 9:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 9:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 10:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 10:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 11:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 11:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 12:32 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-13 20:19 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-13 20:56 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-12 18:13 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-12 23:44 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-11 17:37 ` [RFC patch 2/2] sched: sleepers coarse granularity on wakeup Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-09-12 12:44 ` [RFC patch 0/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running Peter Zijlstra
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=1284282392.2251.81.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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