linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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).