public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-team@fb.com, pjt@google.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
	tglx@linutronix.de, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 08/14] sched,fair: simplify timeslice length code
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:33:42 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190722173348.9241-9-riel@surriel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190722173348.9241-1-riel@surriel.com>

The idea behind __sched_period makes sense, but the results do not always.

When a CPU has one high priority task and a large number of low priority
tasks, __sched_period will return a value larger than sysctl_sched_latency,
and the one high priority task may end up getting a timeslice all for itself
that is also much larger than sysctl_sched_latency.

The low priority tasks will have their time slices rounded up to
sysctl_sched_min_granularity, resulting in an even larger scheduling
latency than targeted by __sched_period.

Simplify the code by simply ripping out __sched_period and always taking
fractions of sysctl_sched_latency.

If a high priority task ends up getting a "too small" time slice compared
to low priority tasks, the vruntime scaling ensures that it will simply
get scheduled more frequently than low priority tasks.

Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 18 +-----------------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 9ff69b927a3c..b4fc328032e6 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -691,22 +691,6 @@ static inline u64 calc_delta_fair(u64 delta, struct sched_entity *se)
 	return delta;
 }
 
-/*
- * The idea is to set a period in which each task runs once.
- *
- * When there are too many tasks (sched_nr_latency) we have to stretch
- * this period because otherwise the slices get too small.
- *
- * p = (nr <= nl) ? l : l*nr/nl
- */
-static u64 __sched_period(unsigned long nr_running)
-{
-	if (unlikely(nr_running > sched_nr_latency))
-		return nr_running * sysctl_sched_min_granularity;
-	else
-		return sysctl_sched_latency;
-}
-
 /*
  * We calculate the wall-time slice from the period by taking a part
  * proportional to the weight.
@@ -715,7 +699,7 @@ static u64 __sched_period(unsigned long nr_running)
  */
 static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
 {
-	u64 slice = __sched_period(cfs_rq->nr_running + !se->on_rq);
+	u64 slice = sysctl_sched_latency;
 
 	for_each_sched_entity(se) {
 		struct load_weight *load;
-- 
2.20.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-07-22 17:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-22 17:33 [PATCH RFC v3 0/14] sched,fair: flatten CPU controller runqueues Rik van Riel
2019-07-22 17:33 ` [PATCH 01/14] sched: introduce task_se_h_load helper Rik van Riel
2019-08-12 17:40   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-22 17:33 ` [PATCH 02/14] sched: change /proc/sched_debug fields Rik van Riel
2019-07-22 17:33 ` [PATCH 03/14] sched,fair: redefine runnable_load_avg as the sum of task_h_load Rik van Riel
2019-07-29 20:05   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-29 21:13     ` Rik van Riel
2019-07-29 20:11   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-29 20:26   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-22 17:33 ` [PATCH 04/14] sched,fair: move runnable_load_avg to cfs_rq Rik van Riel
2019-07-30  8:55   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-22 17:33 ` [PATCH 06/14] sched,cfs: use explicit cfs_rq of parent se helper Rik van Riel
2019-07-22 17:33 ` [PATCH 07/14] sched,cfs: fix zero length timeslice calculation Rik van Riel
2019-07-22 17:33 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2019-07-22 17:33 ` [PATCH 09/14] sched,fair: refactor enqueue/dequeue_entity Rik van Riel
2019-07-30  9:36   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-30 12:58     ` Rik van Riel
2019-07-31  9:35     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-31 15:03       ` Rik van Riel
2019-07-31 15:30         ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-22 17:33 ` [PATCH 10/14] sched,fair: add helper functions for flattened runqueue Rik van Riel
2019-07-22 17:33 ` [PATCH 11/14] sched,fair: flatten hierarchical runqueues Rik van Riel
2019-07-22 17:33 ` [PATCH 12/14] sched,fair: track cfs_rq->max_h_load for more legitimate h_weight Rik van Riel
2019-07-22 17:33 ` [PATCH 13/14] sched,fair: flatten update_curr functionality Rik van Riel
2019-07-22 17:33 ` [PATCH 14/14] sched,fair: propagate sum_exec_runtime up the hierarchy Rik van Riel
2019-07-30 16:29 ` [PATCH RFC v3 0/14] sched,fair: flatten CPU controller runqueues Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-30 18:27   ` Rik van Riel

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=20190722173348.9241-9-riel@surriel.com \
    --to=riel@surriel.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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