From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932450AbcA0NhN (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:37:13 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:35164 "EHLO mail-wm0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752155AbcA0NhJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:37:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:36:51 +0100 From: Luca Abeni To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Juri Lelli Subject: Re: [RFC 4/8] Improve the tracking of active utilisation Message-ID: <20160127143651.4de18ad9@luca-1225C> In-Reply-To: <20160119134739.GY6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1452785094-3086-1-git-send-email-luca.abeni@unitn.it> <1452785094-3086-5-git-send-email-luca.abeni@unitn.it> <20160114194323.GC6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <569E29FD.9040909@unitn.it> <20160119134739.GY6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Peter, On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:47:39 +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 01:20:13PM +0100, Luca Abeni wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > On 01/14/2016 08:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > >On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 04:24:49PM +0100, Luca Abeni wrote: > > >>This patch implements a more theoretically sound algorithm for > > >>thracking the active utilisation: instead of decreasing it when a > > >>task blocks, use a timer (the "inactive timer", named after the > > >>"Inactive" task state of the GRUB algorithm) to decrease the > > >>active utilisaation at the so called "0-lag time". > > > > > >See also the large-ish comment in __setparam_dl(). > > > > > >If we go do proper 0-lag, as GRUB requires, then we might as well > > >use it for that. > > Just to check if I understand correctly: > > I would need to remove "dl_b->total_bw -= p->dl.dl_bw;" from > > task_dead_dl(), and __dl_clear() from "else if (!dl_policy(policy) > > && task_has_dl_policy(p))" in dl_overflow(). Then, arm the > > inactive_timer in these cases, and add the __dl_clear() in the "if > > (!dl_task(p))" in inactive_task_timer()... Right? > > Correct. > > > If this understanding is correct (modulo some details that I'll > > figure out during testing), I'll try this. > > Yes, there's bound to be 'fun' details.. Ok, so I implemented this idea, and I am currently testing it... The first experiments seem to show that there are no problems, but I just tried some simple workload (rt-app, or some other periodic taskset scheduled by SCHED_DEADLINE). Do you have suggestions for more "interesting" (and meaningful) tests/experiments? Thanks, Luca