On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:01:03AM -0800, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:51:58PM -0800, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> wrote:
> >> > That's a fair point. Sorting by CPU before runtime we'll get subtrees we
> >> > won't get fairness unless we sort the events solely by runtime at
> >> > sched_in time. If we sort by with runtime before CPU we'll have to skip
> >> > events not targeting the current CPU when scheduling task events in. I
> >> > note the latter is true today anyhow.
> >>
> >> That's were ctx->inactive_groups comes in. That list is sorted by runtime
> >> and the rb-tree is used to skip to the part of the list that has the events
> >> that matter.
> >
> > Is the list only sorted by runtime and not {cpu,runtime}? If it's the
> > latter, I'm not sure I follow. If it's the former, sorry for the noise!
>
> The former. List only sorted by runtime.
Ah, sorry. I had missed that.
> > The case I'm worried about is a set of task-bound events that have CPU
> > filters. For example, if the user opens a set of task-bound events for
> > any CPU:
> >
> > perf_event_open(attr1, pid, -1, -1, 0);
> > perf_event_open(attr2, pid, -1, -1, 0);
> >
> > ... and also some for the same task, but limited to a specific CPU:
> >
> > perf_event_open(attr3, pid, 1, -1, 0);
> > perf_event_open(attr4, pid, 1, -1, 0);
> >
> > ... if CPU is before runtime in the sort, one of these groups will
> > always be considered first when scheduling, and may starve the other
> > group.
>
> Yes, that case is the reason to have the sorted inactive_list and
> the tree. I tried to explain this in the change log of this patch. Please
> see new attempt below.
That's mostly a reading comprehension failure on my behalf, the commit
log does accurately describe this. It might be a little clearer if we
say the inactive list is sorted *solely* by timestamp, but nothing more
than that should be necessary.
> >> > In Peter's original suggestion we didn't sort by cgroup. IIRC there was
> >> > some email thread where the cgroup was considered for the sort (maybe
> >> > that was *only* for cpu contexts? I'm not too familiar with cgroups),
> >> > though I can't find the relevant mail, if it existed. :/
> >>
> >> FWIW, in this approach, we only sort by cgroup in CPU contexts, since
> >> cgroup
> >> events are only installed in CPU contexts.
> >
> > Sure. However, I think a similar issue to the above applies when
> > scheduling events where some are bound to a specific cgroup, and others
> > are not.
>
> Yes, it's addressed in the same way.
I see that now. Many thanks for the explanation, and apologies for the
noise.
Thanks,
Mark.
