Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 May 2019 15:06:24 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks |
| |
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:36:22AM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 04:18:16PM +0000, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote: > > +/* > > + * l(a,b) > > + * le(a,b) := !l(b,a) > > + * g(a,b) := l(b,a) > > + * ge(a,b) := !l(a,b) > > + */ > > + > > +/* real prio, less is less */ > > +static inline bool __prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b, bool core_cmp) > > +{ > > + u64 vruntime; > > + > > + int pa = __task_prio(a), pb = __task_prio(b); > > + > > + if (-pa < -pb) > > + return true; > > + > > + if (-pb < -pa) > > + return false; > > + > > + if (pa == -1) /* dl_prio() doesn't work because of stop_class above */ > > + return !dl_time_before(a->dl.deadline, b->dl.deadline); > > + > > + vruntime = b->se.vruntime; > > + if (core_cmp) { > > + vruntime -= task_cfs_rq(b)->min_vruntime; > > + vruntime += task_cfs_rq(a)->min_vruntime; > > + } > > + if (pa == MAX_RT_PRIO + MAX_NICE) /* fair */ > > + return !((s64)(a->se.vruntime - vruntime) <= 0); > > + > > + return false; > > +} > > This unfortunately still doesn't work. > > Consider the following task layout on two sibling CPUs(cpu0 and cpu1): > > rq0.cfs_rq rq1.cfs_rq > | | > se_bash se_hog > > se_hog is the sched_entity for a cpu intensive task and se_bash is the > sched_entity for bash. > > There are two problems: > 1 SCHED_DEBIT > when user execute some commands through bash, say ls, bash will fork. > The newly forked ls' vruntime is set in the future due to SCHED_DEBIT. > This made 'ls' lose in __prio_less() when compared with hog, whose > vruntime may very likely be the same as its cfs_rq's min_vruntime. > > This is OK since we do not want forked process to starve already running > ones. The problem is, since hog keeps running, its vruntime will always > sync with its cfs_rq's min_vruntime. OTOH, 'ls' can not run, its > cfs_rq's min_vruntime doesn't proceed, making 'ls' always lose to hog. > > 2 who schedules, who wins > so I disabled SCHED_DEBIT, for testing's purpose. When cpu0 schedules, > ls could win where both sched_entity's vruntime is the same as their > cfs_rqs' min_vruntime. So does hog: when cpu1 schedules, hog can preempt > ls in the same way. The end result is, interactive task can lose to cpu > intensive task and ls can feel "dead". > > I haven't figured out a way to solve this yet. A core wide cfs_rq's > min_vruntime can probably solve this. Your suggestions are appreciated.
multi-queue virtual time is 'interesting'. I worked it out once and then my head hurt, I've forgotten the details again. Esp. when combined with affinity masks the simple things don't work right. For every non-feasible weight scenario it comes apart.
I know pjt has an approximation somewhere that might work for us; but I forgot those details again too.
On possible hack would be to allow min_vruntime to go backwards when there is only a single task present; basically have min_vruntime = p->vruntime when you enqueue the first task.
| |