linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@linux.ibm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, vschneid@redhat.com,
	dhaval@gianis.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] sched/fair: Limit run to parity to the min slice of enqueued entities
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2025 16:27:02 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cee2b280-a036-43b5-8ff8-6ec2a0b9356b@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <71bf9ee3-859c-4c3e-9db4-38c1ab35440a@linux.ibm.com>

On 13/07/25 23:47, Madadi Vineeth Reddy wrote:
> Hi Vincent, Peter
> 
> On 10/07/25 18:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>>>> If I set my task’s custom slice to a larger value but another task has a smaller slice,
>>>> this change will cap my protected window to the smaller slice. Does that mean my custom
>>>> slice is no longer honored?
>>>
>>> What do you mean by honored ? EEVDF never mandates that a request of
>>> size slice will be done in one go. Slice mainly defines the deadline
>>> and orders the entities but not that it will always run your slice in
>>> one go. Run to parity tries to minimize the number of context switches
>>> between runnable tasks but must not break fairness and lag theorem.So
>>> If your task A has a slice of 10ms and task B wakes up with a slice of
>>> 1ms. B will preempt A because its deadline is earlier. If task B still
>>> wants to run after its slice is exhausted, it will not be eligible and
>>> task A will run until task B becomes eligible, which is as long as
>>> task B's slice.
>>
>> Right. Added if you don't want wakeup preemption, we've got SCHED_BATCH
>> for you.
> 
> Thanks for the explanation. Understood now that slice is only for deadline
> calculation and ordering for eligible tasks.
> 
> Before your patch, I observed that each task ran for its full custom slice
> before preemption, which led me to assume that slice directly controlled
> uninterrupted runtime.
> 
> With the patch series applied and RUN_TO_PARITY=true, I now see the expected behavior:
> - Default slice (~2.8 ms): tasks run ~3 ms each.
> - Increasing one task’s slice doesn’t extend its single‐run duration—it remains ~3 ms.
> - Decreasing one tasks’ slice shortens everyone’s run to that new minimum.
> 
> With this patch series, With NO_RUN_TO_PARITY, I see runtimes near 1 ms (CONFIG_HZ=1000).
> 
> However, without your patches, I was still seeing ~3 ms runs even with NO_RUN_TO_PARITY,
> which confused me because I expected runtime to drop to ~1 ms (preempt at every tick)
> rather than run up to the default slice.
> 
> Without your patches and having RUN_TO_PARITY is as expected. Task running till it's
> slice when eligible.
> 
> I ran these with 16 stress‑ng threads pinned to one CPU.
> 
> Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect, and why I was still seeing ~3 ms
> runtimes with NO_RUN_TO_PARITY before this patch series.
> 

Hi Vincent,

Just following up on my earlier question: with the patch applied (and RUN_TO_PARITY=true),
reducing one task’s slice now clamps the runtime of all tasks on that runqueue to the new
minimum.(By “runtime” I mean the continuous time a task runs before preemption.). Could this
negatively impact throughput oriented workloads where remaining threads need longer run time
before preemption? 

I understand that slice is only for ordering of deadlines but just curious about it's
effect in scenarios like this.

Thanks,
Madadi Vineeth Reddy

> Thanks,
> Madadi Vineeth Reddy


  reply	other threads:[~2025-07-20 10:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-07-08 16:56 [PATCH v3 0/6] sched/fair: Manage lag and run to parity with different slices Vincent Guittot
2025-07-08 16:56 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] sched/fair: Use protect_slice() instead of direct comparison Vincent Guittot
2025-07-10 12:46   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Vincent Guittot
2025-07-08 16:56 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/fair: Fix NO_RUN_TO_PARITY case Vincent Guittot
2025-07-09  9:17   ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-07-09  9:32     ` Vincent Guittot
2025-07-10 12:46   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Vincent Guittot
2025-07-08 16:56 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] sched/fair: Remove spurious shorter slice preemption Vincent Guittot
2025-07-10 12:46   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Vincent Guittot
2025-07-08 16:56 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] sched/fair: Limit run to parity to the min slice of enqueued entities Vincent Guittot
2025-07-10  6:59   ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2025-07-10 10:40     ` Vincent Guittot
2025-07-10 12:34       ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-07-13 18:17         ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2025-07-20 10:57           ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy [this message]
2025-07-21  9:11             ` Vincent Guittot
2025-07-21 15:22               ` Madadi Vineeth Reddy
2025-07-21  9:06           ` Vincent Guittot
2025-07-10 12:46   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Vincent Guittot
2025-07-08 16:56 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] sched/fair: Fix entity's lag with run to parity Vincent Guittot
2025-07-10 12:46   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Vincent Guittot
2025-07-08 16:56 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] sched/fair: Always trigger resched at the end of a protected period Vincent Guittot
2025-07-10 12:46   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Vincent Guittot

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=cee2b280-a036-43b5-8ff8-6ec2a0b9356b@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=vineethr@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dhaval@gianis.ca \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).