From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
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 16:34:54 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100912203454.GC32327@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1284282392.2251.81.camel@laptop>
* Peter Zijlstra (peterz@infradead.org) wrote:
> 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.
__sched_gran() provides large values for small nr_running, and smaller values
for larger nr_running.
So for systems with few threads running, we have good throughput (and there does
not seem to be much latency issues there). However for a system with a larger
number of running threads, __sched_gran() dynamically reduces the granularity.
>
> > 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.
My approach try to get lower latencies without sacrificing throughput when there
are few threads running, which IMHO is the common case where throughput really
matters. A system running tons of threads should already expect some sort of
throughput degradation anyway, so we might as well favor low-latency rather than
throughput on those systems running lots of threads.
>
> > 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)
Hrm, in sched_fair.c, sysctl_sched_latency is set to 6000000ULL. So this would
be a sched_latency = 6, or am I missing something ? With a sched_latency of 6,
the jump you show below in your graph disappears. So what have I missed ?
I agree with the shape of your graph, I'm just trying to understand why you have
a sched_latency of 10.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-12 20:34 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 [this message]
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=20100912203454.GC32327@Krystal \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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