lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] sched: adjust SCHED_IDLE interactions
> > @@ -697,8 +699,18 @@ static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> > slice = __calc_delta(slice, se->load.weight, load);
> > }
> >
> > - if (sched_feat(BASE_SLICE))
> > - slice = max(slice, (u64)w);
> > + if (sched_feat(BASE_SLICE)) {
> > + /*
> > + * SCHED_IDLE entities are not subject to min_granularity if
> > + * they are competing with non SCHED_IDLE entities. As a result,
> > + * non SCHED_IDLE entities will have reduced latency to get back
> > + * on cpu, at the cost of increased context switch frequency of
> > + * SCHED_IDLE entities.
> > + */
>
> Ensuring that the entity will have a minimum runtime has been added to
> ensure that we let enough time to move forward.
> If you exclude sched_idle entities from this min runtime, the
> sched_slice of an idle_entity will be really small.
> I don't have details of your example above but I can imagine that it's
> a 16 cpus system which means a sysctl_sched_min_granularity=3.75ms
> which explains the 4ms running time of an idle entity
> For a 16 cpus system, the sched_slice of an idle_entity in your
> example in the cover letter is: 6*(1+log2(16))*3/1027=87us. Of course
> this become even worse with more threads and cgroups or thread with
> ncie prio -19
>
> This value is then used to set the next hrtimer event in SCHED_HRTICK
> and 87us is too small to make any progress
>
> The 1ms of your test comes from the tick which could be a good
> candidate for a min value or the
> normalized_sysctl_sched_min_granularity which has the advantage of not
> increasing with number of CPU

Fair point, this shouldn't completely ignore min granularity. Something like

unsigned int sysctl_sched_idle_min_granularity = NSEC_PER_MSEC;

(and still only using this value instead of the default
min_granularity when the SCHED_IDLE entity is competing with normal
entities)

> > @@ -4216,7 +4228,15 @@ place_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int initial)
> > if (sched_feat(GENTLE_FAIR_SLEEPERS))
> > thresh >>= 1;
> >
> > - vruntime -= thresh;
> > + /*
> > + * Don't give sleep credit to a SCHED_IDLE entity if we're
> > + * placing it onto a cfs_rq with non SCHED_IDLE entities.
> > + */
> > + if (!se_is_idle(se) ||
> > + cfs_rq->h_nr_running == cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running)
>
> Can't this condition above create unfairness between idle entities ?
> idle thread 1 wake up while normal thread is running
> normal thread thread sleeps immediately after
> idle thread 2 wakes up just after and gets some credits compared to the 1st one.

Yes, this sacrifices some idle<->idle fairness when there is a normal
thread that comes and goes. One alternative is to simply further
reduce thresh for idle entities. That will interfere with idle<->idle
fairness when there are no normal threads, which is why I opted for
the former. On second thought though, the former fairness issue seems
more problematic. Thoughts on applying a smaller sleep credit
threshold universally to idle entities?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-08-12 23:10    [W:0.512 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site