From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] sched: don't consider upper se in sched_slice()
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 23:02:43 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <515B163B.8050509@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130402092647.GE16699@lge.com>
Hi Joonsoo,
>>> I think that it is real problem that sysctl_sched_min_granularity is not
>>> guaranteed for each task.
>>> Instead of this patch, how about considering low bound?
>>>
>>> if (slice < sysctl_sched_min_granularity)
>>> slice = sysctl_sched_min_granularity;
>>
>> Consider the below scenario.
>>
>> A runqueue has two task groups,each with 10 tasks.
>>
>> With the current implementation,each of these tasks get a sched_slice of
>> 2ms.Hence in a matter of (10*2) + (10*2) = 40 ms, all tasks( all tasks
>> of both the task groups) will get the chance to run.
>>
>> But what is the scheduling period in this scenario? Is it 40ms (extended
>> sysctl_sched_latency), which is the scheduling period for each of the
>> runqueues with 10 tasks in it?
>> Or is it 80ms which is the total of the scheduling periods of each of
>> the run queues with 10 tasks.Either way all tasks seem to get scheduled
>> atleast once within the scheduling period.So we appear to be safe.
>> Although the sched_slice < sched_min_granularity.
>>
>> With your above lower bound of sysctl_sched_min_granularity, each task
>> of each tg gets 4ms as its sched_slice.So in a matter of
>> (10*4) + (10*4) = 80ms,all tasks get to run. With the above question
>> being put forth here as well, we don't appear to be safe if the
>> scheduling_period is considered to be 40ms, otherwise it appears fine to
>> me, because it ensures the sched_slice is atleast sched_min_granularity
>> no matter what.
>
> So, you mean that we should guarantee to schedule each task atleast once
> in sysctl_sched_latency?
I would rather say all tasks get to run atleast once in a sched_period,
which could be just sysctl_sched_latency or more depending on the number
of tasks in the current implementation.
But this is not guaranteed in current code,
> this is why I made this patch. Please refer a patch description.
Ok,take the example of a runqueue with 2 task groups,each with 10
tasks.Same as your previous example. Can you explain how your patch
ensures that all 20 tasks get to run atleast once in a sched_period?
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-02 17:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-28 7:58 [PATCH 0/5] optimization, clean-up, correctness about fair.c Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-28 7:58 ` [PATCH 1/5] sched: remove one division operation in find_buiest_queue() Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-28 7:58 ` [PATCH 2/5] sched: factor out code to should_we_balance() Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-29 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-01 5:10 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-29 11:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-01 5:16 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-02 8:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-02 9:50 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-02 10:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-02 10:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-04 0:55 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-28 7:58 ` [PATCH 3/5] sched: clean-up struct sd_lb_stat Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-28 7:58 ` [PATCH 4/5] sched: don't consider upper se in sched_slice() Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-29 7:12 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-01 4:08 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-01 7:06 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-02 2:25 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-02 2:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-04-02 9:35 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-02 4:55 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-02 9:26 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-02 17:32 ` Preeti U Murthy [this message]
2013-04-04 0:42 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-04 6:48 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-05 2:06 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-28 7:58 ` [PATCH 5/5] sched: limit sched_slice if it is more than sysctl_sched_latency Joonsoo Kim
2013-03-29 11:35 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-01 5:09 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-04-01 6:45 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-02 2:02 ` Joonsoo Kim
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=515B163B.8050509@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).