On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 12:51 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 17:01 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 10:10:32PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Currently the ideal slice length does not take group scheduling into account.
> > > Change it so that it properly takes all the runnable tasks on this cpu into
> > > account and caluclate the weight according to the grouping hierarchy.
> > >
> > > Also fixes a bug in vslice which missed a factor NICE_0_LOAD.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> > > CC: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/sched_fair.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > > @@ -331,10 +331,15 @@ static u64 __sched_period(unsigned long
> > > */
> > > static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> > > {
> > > - u64 slice = __sched_period(cfs_rq->nr_running);
> > > + unsigned long nr_running = rq_of(cfs_rq)->nr_running;
> > > + u64 slice = __sched_period(nr_running);
> > >
> > > - slice *= se->load.weight;
> > > - do_div(slice, cfs_rq->load.weight);
> > > + for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> > > + cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> > > +
> > > + slice *= se->load.weight;
> > > + do_div(slice, cfs_rq->load.weight);
> > > + }
> > >
> > > return slice;
> >
> >
> > Lets say we have two groups A and B on CPU0, of equal weight (1024).
> >
> > Further,
> >
> > A has 1 task (A0)
> > B has 1000 tasks (B0 .. B999)
> >
> > Agreed its a extreme case, but illustrates the problem I have in mind
> > for this patch.
> >
> > All tasks of same weight=1024.
> >
> > Before this patch
> > =================
> >
> > sched_slice(grp A) = 20ms * 1/2 = 10ms
> > sched_slice(A0) = 20ms
> >
> > sched_slice(grp B) = 20ms * 1/2 = 10ms
> > sched_slice(B0) = (20ms * 1000/20) * 1 / 1000 = 1ms
> > sched_slice(B1) = ... = sched_slice(B99) = 1 ms
> >
> > Fairness between groups and tasks would be obtained as below:
> >
> > A0 B0-B9 A0 B10-B19 A0 B20-B29
> > |--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-----//--|
> > 0 10ms 20ms 30ms 40ms 50ms 60ms
> >
> > After this patch
> > ================
> >
> > sched_slice(grp A) = (20ms * 1001/20) * 1/2 ~= 500ms
> > sched_slice(A0) = 500ms
>
> Hmm, right that is indeed not intended
>
> > sched_slice(grp B) = 500ms
> > sched_slice(B0) = 0.5ms
>
> This 0.5 is indeed correct, whereas the previous 1ms was not
>
> > Fairness between groups and tasks would be obtained as below:
> >
> > A0 B0 - B99 A0
> > |-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|
> > 0 500ms 1000ms 1500ms
> >
> > Did I get it right? If so, I don't like the fact that group A is allowed to run
> > for a long time (500ms) before giving chance to group B.
>
> Hmm, quite bad indeed.
hmm, then again, with 1001 tasks running, that is exactly what should
happen.
> > Can I know what real problem is being addressed by this change to
> > sched_slice()?
>
> sched_slice() is about lantecy, its intended purpose is to ensure each
> task is ran exactly once during sched_period() - which is
> sysctl_sched_latency when nr_running <= sysctl_sched_nr_latency, and
> otherwise linearly scales latency.
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
