From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 4.3 group scheduling regression
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:12:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151012021230.GK11102@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151012091206.GK3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:12:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:53:51AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > Good morning, Peter.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:04:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 09:44:57AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's odd to me that things look pretty much the same good/bad tree with
> > > > hogs vs hogs or hogs vs tbench (with top anyway, just adding up times).
> > > > Seems Xorg+mplayer more or less playing cross group ping-pong must be
> > > > the BadThing trigger.
> > >
> > > Ohh, wait, Xorg and mplayer are _not_ in the same group? I was assuming
> > > you had your entire user session in 1 (auto) group and was competing
> > > against 8 manual cgroups.
> > >
> > > So how exactly are things configured?
> >
> > Hmm... my impression is the naughty boy mplayer (+Xorg) isn't favored, due
> > to the per CPU group entity share distribution. Let me dig more.
>
> So in the old code we had 'magic' to deal with the case where a cgroup
> was consuming less than 1 cpu's worth of runtime. For example, a single
> task running in the group.
>
> In that scenario it might be possible that the group entity weight:
>
> se->weight = (tg->shares * cfs_rq->weight) / tg->weight;
>
> Strongly deviates from the tg->shares; you want the single task reflect
> the full group shares to the next level; due to the whole distributed
> approximation stuff.
Yeah, I thought so.
> I see you've deleted all that code; see the former
> __update_group_entity_contrib().
Probably not there, it actually was an icky way to adjust things.
> It could be that we need to bring that back. But let me think a little
> bit more on this.. I'm having a hard time waking :/
I am guessing it is in calc_tg_weight(), and naughty boys do make them more
favored, what a reality...
Mike, beg you test the following?
--
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 4df37a4..b184da0 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -2370,7 +2370,7 @@ static inline long calc_tg_weight(struct task_group *tg, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
*/
tg_weight = atomic_long_read(&tg->load_avg);
tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_avg_contrib;
- tg_weight += cfs_rq_load_avg(cfs_rq);
+ tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight;
return tg_weight;
}
@@ -2380,7 +2380,7 @@ static long calc_cfs_shares(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct task_group *tg)
long tg_weight, load, shares;
tg_weight = calc_tg_weight(tg, cfs_rq);
- load = cfs_rq_load_avg(cfs_rq);
+ load = cfs_rq->load.weight;
shares = (tg->shares * load);
if (tg_weight)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-12 10:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-05 21:48 CFS scheduler unfairly prefers pinned tasks paul.szabo
2015-10-06 2:45 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-06 10:06 ` paul.szabo
2015-10-06 12:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-06 20:44 ` paul.szabo
2015-10-07 1:28 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-08 8:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-08 10:54 ` paul.szabo
2015-10-08 11:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-10 13:22 ` [patch] sched: disable task group re-weighting on the desktop Mike Galbraith
2015-10-10 14:03 ` kbuild test robot
2015-10-10 14:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-10 17:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-10 17:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-11 2:25 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-11 17:42 ` 4.3 group scheduling regression Mike Galbraith
2015-10-12 7:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-12 7:44 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-12 8:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-12 0:53 ` Yuyang Du
2015-10-12 9:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-12 2:12 ` Yuyang Du [this message]
2015-10-12 10:23 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-12 19:55 ` Yuyang Du
2015-10-13 4:08 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-12 20:42 ` Yuyang Du
2015-10-13 8:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-13 0:35 ` Yuyang Du
2015-10-13 8:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-13 0:37 ` Yuyang Du
2015-10-12 11:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-12 19:32 ` Yuyang Du
2015-10-13 8:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-13 2:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-12 8:48 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-10 20:14 ` [patch] sched: disable task group re-weighting on the desktop paul.szabo
2015-10-11 2:38 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-11 9:25 ` paul.szabo
2015-10-11 12:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-11 19:46 ` paul.szabo
2015-10-12 1:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-08 14:25 ` CFS scheduler unfairly prefers pinned tasks Mike Galbraith
2015-10-08 21:55 ` paul.szabo
2015-10-09 1:56 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-09 2:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-10-11 9:43 ` paul.szabo
2015-10-10 3:59 ` Wanpeng Li
2015-10-10 7:58 ` Wanpeng Li
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=20151012021230.GK11102@intel.com \
--to=yuyang.du@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).