From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 8/9] sched/deadline: base GRUB reclaiming on the inactive utilization
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:56:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170327165651.2d09b00d@luca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170327142633.nubm5saddpitylot@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:26:33 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:53:01AM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
> > From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
> >
> > Instead of decreasing the runtime as "dq = -Uact dt" (eventually
> > divided by the maximum utilization available for deadline tasks),
> > decrease it as "dq = -(1 - Uinact) dt", where Uinact is the
> > "inactive utilization".
>
> > In this way, the maximum fraction of CPU time that can be reclaimed
> > is given by the total utilization of deadline tasks.
> > This approach solves some fairness issues that have been noticed
> > with "traditional" global GRUB reclaiming.
>
> I think the Changelog could do with explicit enumeration of what
> "some" is.
Sorry, when writing the changelog I've been lazy; I'll add a link to
Daniel's email showing the problem in action.
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
> > Tested-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/deadline.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > index d70a7b9..c393c3d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > @@ -900,14 +900,23 @@ extern bool sched_rt_bandwidth_account(struct
> > rt_rq *rt_rq); /*
> > * This function implements the GRUB accounting rule:
> > * according to the GRUB reclaiming algorithm, the runtime is
> > + * not decreased as "dq = -dt", but as "dq = (1 - Uinact) dt",
> > where
>
> Changelog had it right I think: dq = -(1 - Uinact) dt
Sorry about the typo... I'll fix it
> > + * Uinact is the (per-runqueue) inactive utilization, computed as
> > the
> > + * difference between the "total runqueue utilization" and the
> > runqueue
> > + * active utilization.
> > + * Since rq->dl.running_bw and rq->dl.this_bw contain utilizations
> > + * multiplied by 2^20, the result has to be shifted right by 20.
> > */
> > -u64 grub_reclaim(u64 delta, struct rq *rq)
> > +u64 grub_reclaim(u64 delta, struct rq *rq, u64 u)
> > {
> > + u64 u_act;
> > +
> > + if (rq->dl.this_bw - rq->dl.running_bw > (1 << 20) - u)
> > + u_act = u;
> > + else
> > + u_act = (1 << 20) - rq->dl.this_bw +
> > rq->dl.running_bw; +
> > + return (delta * u_act) >> 20;
>
> But that's not what is done here I think, something like this instead:
>
> Uinact = Utot - Uact
>
> -t_u dt ; Uinact > (1 - t_u)
> dq = {
> -(1 - Uinact) dt
>
>
> And nowhere do we have an explanation for that.
Sorry about this confusion... The accounting should be
dq = -(1 - Uinact)dt
but if (1 - Uinact) is too large (larger than the task's utilization)
then we use the task's utilization instead (otherwise, we end up
reclaiming other runqueues' time). I realized that this check was
needed after writing the comments, and I forgot to update the comments
when I fixed the code :(
> Now, I suspect we can write that like: dq = -max{ t_u, (1 - Uinact) }
> dt, which would suggest this is a sanity check on Utot, which I
> suspect can be over 1. Is this what is happening?
Right... I'll fix the code and comments according to your suggestion.
Thanks,
Luca
> #define BW_SHIFT 20
> #define BW_UNIT (1 << BW_SHIFT)
>
> static inline
> u64 grub_reclaim(u64 delta, struct rq *rq, struct sched_dl_entity
> *dl_se) {
> u64 u_inact = rq->dl.this_bw - rq->dl.running_bw; /* Utot -
> Uact */ u64 u_act;
>
> /*
> * What we want to write is:
> *
> * max(BW_UNIT - u_inact, dl_se->dl_bw)
> *
> * but we cannot do that since Utot can be larger than 1,
> * which means u_inact can be larger than 1, which would
> * have the above result in negative values.
> */
> if (u_inact > (BW_UNIT - dl_se->dl_bw))
> u_act = dl_se->dl_bw;
> else
> u_act = BW_UNIT - u_inact;
>
> return (delta * u_act) >> BW_SHIFT;
> }
>
> Hmm?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-27 14:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-24 3:52 [RFC v5 0/9] CPU reclaiming for SCHED_DEADLINE luca abeni
2017-03-24 3:52 ` [RFC v5 1/9] sched/deadline: track the active utilization luca abeni
2017-03-26 17:04 ` Mathieu Poirier
2017-03-26 20:55 ` luca abeni
2017-03-24 3:52 ` [RFC v5 2/9] sched/deadline: improve the tracking of " luca abeni
2017-03-24 13:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-24 21:47 ` luca abeni
2017-03-25 2:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-03-27 8:20 ` Luca Abeni
2017-03-27 8:54 ` Claudio Scordino
2017-03-27 7:17 ` Juri Lelli
2017-03-27 7:43 ` Luca Abeni
2017-03-27 8:45 ` Juri Lelli
2017-03-27 7:36 ` Luca Abeni
2017-07-24 8:06 ` Luca Abeni
2017-07-24 9:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-25 6:41 ` Luca Abeni
2017-03-24 13:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-24 7:54 ` Luca Abeni
2017-07-24 9:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-25 6:46 ` Luca Abeni
2017-03-26 17:32 ` Mathieu Poirier
2017-03-26 21:01 ` luca abeni
2017-03-24 3:52 ` [RFC v5 3/9] sched/deadline: fix the update of the total -deadline utilization luca abeni
2017-03-24 3:52 ` [RFC v5 4/9] sched/deadline: implement GRUB accounting luca abeni
2017-03-24 3:52 ` [RFC v5 5/9] sched/deadline: do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth luca abeni
2017-03-24 14:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-24 21:58 ` luca abeni
2017-03-25 2:38 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-03-27 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-24 3:52 ` [RFC v5 6/9] sched/deadline: make GRUB a task's flag luca abeni
2017-03-24 3:53 ` [RFC v5 7/9] sched/deadline: track the "total rq utilization" too luca abeni
2017-03-24 3:53 ` [RFC v5 8/9] sched/deadline: base GRUB reclaiming on the inactive utilization luca abeni
2017-03-27 14:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-27 14:56 ` Luca Abeni [this message]
2017-03-27 15:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-27 17:02 ` luca abeni
2017-05-08 7:41 ` Luca Abeni
2017-05-08 8:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-05-09 9:37 ` Luca Abeni
2017-03-24 3:53 ` [RFC v5 9/9] sched/deadline: also reclaim bandwidth not used by dl tasks luca abeni
2017-03-27 14:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-27 14:48 ` Luca Abeni
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=20170327165651.2d09b00d@luca \
--to=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=claudio@evidence.eu.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it \
/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