lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 01:49:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:27:04PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:35:41AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 09:36:22AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > What will such throttling do to latencies, as observed by user-space tasks? What's
> > > > the typical expected frequency of the throttling frequency that you are targeting?
> > >
> > > The default has 5ms (iirc) of forced idle, so depending on what you do,
> > > noticeable to outright painful.
> >
> > IIUC, it is 5 ticks, not ms.
>
> The code uses hrtimers (badly), this means there _should_ not be a tick
> dependency.

Then I'm confused :-/

I see the hrtimers, but the actual idle duration appears to be in ticks
rather than ms and then converted later.

+/* Duration of idle time in ticks of each injection period */
+unsigned int sysctl_sched_cfs_idle_inject_duration = 5UL;

...and futher down we have:

+ duration_msec = jiffies_to_msecs(sysctl_sched_cfs_idle_inject_duration);

I will go back and look harder.

>
> > Which raises the question, doesn't that mean that we get disturbed four
> > times on each cpu during the forced idle period? So idle injection only
> > makes sense if the platform has package states with a target residency
> > less than a jiffy. Or, do we enter NOHZ idle? I haven't looked closely
> > enough to figure out yet.
>
> The idea is to hit NOHZ.

Nice!


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-18 15:21    [W:0.088 / U:0.364 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site