From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 1/2] sched: dynamically adapt granularity with nr_running
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:53:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1284393215.2275.383.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1284386179.10436.6.camel@marge.simson.net>
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 15:56 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's what I wanted to boil it down to instead of putting the extra
> preempt check in, but it kills the longish slices of low load. IIRC,
> when I tried that, it demolished throughput.
Hrm.. yes it would..
So the reason for all this:
/*
* 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.
*/
Is to avoid tasks getting too far ahead in virtual time due to buddies,
right?
Would something like the below work? Don't actually use delta_exec to
filter, but use wakeup_gran + min_gran on virtual time, (much like Steve
suggested) and then verify using __sched_gran().
Or have I now totally confused myself backwards?
- delta_exec is walltime, and should thus we compared against a
weighted unit like slice,
- delta is a vruntime unit, and is thus weight free, hence we can use
granularity/unweighted units.
---
kernel/sched_fair.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
index 9b5b4f8..7f418de 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -485,6 +485,16 @@ static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
return slice;
}
+static u64 __sched_gran(unsigned long nr_running)
+{
+ unsigned long latency = sysctl_sched_latency;
+
+ if (nr_running >= nr_latency)
+ return sysctl_sched_min_granularity;
+
+ return latency / nr_running;
+}
+
/*
* We calculate the vruntime slice of a to be inserted task
*
@@ -865,14 +875,16 @@ check_preempt_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
if (!sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT))
return;
- if (delta_exec < sysctl_sched_min_granularity)
- return;
-
if (cfs_rq->nr_running > 1) {
struct sched_entity *se = __pick_next_entity(cfs_rq);
s64 delta = curr->vruntime - se->vruntime;
+ u64 wakeup_gran = sysctl_sched_wakeup_granularity;
+ u64 min_gran = sysctl_sched_min_granularity;
+
+ if (delta < wakeup_gran + min_gran)
+ return;
- if (delta > ideal_runtime)
+ if (delta > wakeup_gran + __sched_gran(cfs_rq->nr_running))
resched_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)->curr);
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-13 15:53 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
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 [this message]
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=1284393215.2275.383.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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