From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.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: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:15:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1284383758.2275.283.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1284382387.2275.265.camel@laptop>
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 14:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 16:37 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > The whole point of my patch is not to have to do this latency vs performance
> > tradeoff for low number of running threads. With your approach, lowering the
> > granularity even when there are few threads running will very likely hurt
> > performance, no ?
>
> But you presented it as a latency patch, not a throughput patch. And I'm
> not sure it will matter enough to offset the computational cost it
> introduces.
---
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 14:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 16:37 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > The whole point of my patch is not to have to do this latency vs performance
> > tradeoff for low number of running threads. With your approach, lowering the
> > granularity even when there are few threads running will very likely hurt
> > performance, no ?
>
> But you presented it as a latency patch, not a throughput patch. And I'm
> not sure it will matter enough to offset the computational cost it
> introduces.
>
One option is to simply get rid of that stuff in check_preempt_tick()
and instead do a wakeup-preempt check on the leftmost task instead.
The code as it stands today does that delta_exec < min_gran check to
ensure current gets some runtime before doing that second preemption
check, which compares vruntime with a wall-time measure.
Making that gran more complex doesn't really buy us much because for a
system with different weights in the gran and slice lengths don't match
up anyway.
---
Subject: sched: Simplify tick preemption
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Date: Mon Jul 05 13:56:30 CEST 2010
Check the current slice, if not expired, see if the leftmost task
would otherwise have preempted current.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
---
kernel/sched_fair.c | 43 +++++++++++++++----------------------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -838,44 +838,34 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, st
se->vruntime -= cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
}
+static int
+wakeup_preempt_entity(struct sched_entity *curr, struct sched_entity *se);
+
/*
* Preempt the current task with a newly woken task if needed:
*/
static void
check_preempt_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
{
- unsigned long ideal_runtime, delta_exec;
+ unsigned long slice = sched_slice(cfs_rq, curr);
+
+ if (curr->sum_exec_runtime - curr->prev_sum_exec_runtime < slice) {
+ struct sched_entity *pse = __pick_next_entity(cfs_rq);
+
+ if (pse && wakeup_preempt_entity(curr, pse) == 1)
+ goto preempt;
- ideal_runtime = sched_slice(cfs_rq, curr);
- delta_exec = curr->sum_exec_runtime - curr->prev_sum_exec_runtime;
- if (delta_exec > ideal_runtime) {
- resched_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)->curr);
- /*
- * The current task ran long enough, ensure it doesn't get
- * re-elected due to buddy favours.
- */
- clear_buddies(cfs_rq, curr);
return;
}
/*
- * Ensure that a task that missed wakeup preemption by a
- * narrow margin doesn't have to wait for a full slice.
- * This also mitigates buddy induced latencies under load.
+ * The current task ran long enough, ensure it doesn't get
+ * re-elected due to buddy favours.
*/
- if (!sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT))
- return;
-
- if (delta_exec < sysctl_sched_min_granularity)
- return;
+ clear_buddies(cfs_rq, curr);
- if (cfs_rq->nr_running > 1) {
- struct sched_entity *se = __pick_next_entity(cfs_rq);
- s64 delta = curr->vruntime - se->vruntime;
-
- if (delta > ideal_runtime)
- resched_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)->curr);
- }
+preempt:
+ resched_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)->curr);
}
static void
@@ -908,9 +898,6 @@ set_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, s
se->prev_sum_exec_runtime = se->sum_exec_runtime;
}
-static int
-wakeup_preempt_entity(struct sched_entity *curr, struct sched_entity *se);
-
static struct sched_entity *pick_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
{
struct sched_entity *se = __pick_next_entity(cfs_rq);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-13 13:16 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
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 [this message]
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=1284383758.2275.283.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