From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] check_preempt_tick should not compare vruntime with wall time
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:36:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100913173634.GA17815@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100913161641.GA28707@Krystal>
* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra (peterz@infradead.org) wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 09:56 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> [...]
> > > > 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);
> > >
> > > So you still compute the sched_slice(), based on sched_period(), based on
> > > sysctl_sched_min_granularity *= nr_running when there are more than nr_latency
> > > running threads.
> >
> > What's wrong with that? I keep asking you, you keep not giving an
> > answer. Stop focussing on nr_latency, its an by produce not a
> > fundamental entity.
> >
> > period := max(latency, min_gran * nr_running)
> >
> > See, no nr_latency -- the one and only purpose of nr_latency is avoiding
> > that multiplication when possible.
>
> OK, the long IRC discussions we just had convinced me that the current
> scheme takes things into account by adapting the granularity
> dynamically, but also got me to notice that check_preempt seems to
> compare vruntime with wall time, which is utterly incorrect. So maybe
> all my patch was doing was to expose this bug:
>
> ---
> kernel/sched_fair.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6-lttng.git/kernel/sched_fair.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-lttng.git.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ linux-2.6-lttng.git/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -869,7 +869,7 @@ check_preempt_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq
> struct sched_entity *se = __pick_next_entity(cfs_rq);
> s64 delta = curr->vruntime - se->vruntime;
>
> - if (delta > ideal_runtime)
> + if (delta > calc_delta_fair(ideal_runtime, curr))
> resched_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)->curr);
> }
> }
It should have no effect at all on your latency measurements, as
calc_delta_fair() is a NOP for nice-0 tasks:
static inline unsigned long
calc_delta_fair(unsigned long delta, struct sched_entity *se)
{
if (unlikely(se->load.weight != NICE_0_LOAD))
delta = calc_delta_mine(delta, NICE_0_LOAD, &se->load);
return delta;
}
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-13 17:36 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 [this message]
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=20100913173634.GA17815@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--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