From: cruzzhao <cruzzhao@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: introduce core_vruntime and core_min_vruntime
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 21:42:13 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <246dee1f-5e14-e075-13c7-ce876305cb54@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231115122027.GZ8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
在 2023/11/15 下午8:20, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:33:40PM +0800, Cruz Zhao wrote:
>> To compare the priority of sched_entity from different cpus of a core,
>> we introduce core_vruntime to struct sched_entity and core_min_vruntime
>> to struct cfs_rq.
>>
>> cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime records the min vruntime of the cfs_rqs
>> of the same task_group among the core, and se->core_vruntime is the
>> vruntime relative to se->cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime.
>
> But that makes absolutely no sense. vruntime of different RQs can
> advance at wildly different rates. Not to mention there's this random
> offset between them.
>
> No, this cannot be.
Force idle vruntime snapshot does the same thing, comparing
sea->vruntime - cfs_rqa->min_vruntime_fi with seb->vruntime -
cfs_rqb->min_vruntime_fi, while sea and seb may have wildly different rates.
Actually, cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime does the same thing as
cfs_rq->min_vruntime_fi, providing a baseline, but
cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime is more accurate.
I've tried to implement a fair enough mechanism of core_vruntime, but
it's too complex because of the weight, and it costs a lot. So this is a
compromise solution.
BTW, is there any other solutions to solve this problem?
Best,
Cruz Zhao
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-15 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-15 11:33 [PATCH 0/4] sched/core: fix cfs_prio_less Cruz Zhao
2023-11-15 11:33 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/core: introduce core_id to struct rq Cruz Zhao
2023-11-15 11:33 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/core: introduce core to struct cfs_rq Cruz Zhao
2023-11-15 20:08 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-15 20:19 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-18 10:48 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-15 11:33 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: introduce core_vruntime and core_min_vruntime Cruz Zhao
2023-11-15 12:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-15 13:42 ` cruzzhao [this message]
2023-11-15 15:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-16 6:38 ` cruzzhao
2023-11-17 2:48 ` cruzzhao
2023-11-15 20:51 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-15 11:33 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/core: fix cfs_prio_less Cruz Zhao
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=246dee1f-5e14-e075-13c7-ce876305cb54@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=cruzzhao@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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