On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 20:46, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 13:28, benbjiang(蒋彪) <benbji...@tencent.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 20, 2020, at 3:35 PM, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 02:13, benbjiang(蒋彪) <benbji...@tencent.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 10:55 PM, Vincent Guittot
> > >>> <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 16:27, benbjiang(蒋彪) <benbji...@tencent.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 7:55 PM, Dietmar Eggemann
> > >>>>> <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 19/08/2020 13:05, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 12:46, Dietmar Eggemann
> > >>>>>> <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 17/08/2020 14:05, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Aug 17, 2020, at 4:57 PM, Dietmar Eggemann
> > >>>>>>>>> <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 14/08/2020 01:55, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 13, 2020, at 2:39 AM, Dietmar Eggemann
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/08/2020 05:19, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2020, at 11:54 PM, Dietmar Eggemann
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/08/2020 02:41, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 2020, at 9:24 PM, Dietmar Eggemann
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/08/2020 17:52, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Dietmar Eggemann
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2020 13:26, benbjiang(蒋彪) wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 3, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Dietmar Eggemann
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/08/2020 04:32, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jiang Biao <benbji...@tencent.com>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> [...]
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Are you sure about this?
> > >>>>>>>> Yes. :)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The math is telling me for the:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> idle task: (3 / (1024 + 1024 + 3))^(-1) * 4ms = 2735ms
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> normal task: (1024 / (1024 + 1024 + 3))^(-1) * 4ms = 8ms
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> (4ms - 250 Hz)
> > >>>>>>>> My tick is 1ms - 1000HZ, which seems reasonable for 600ms? :)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> OK, I see.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> But here the different sched slices (check_preempt_tick()->
> > >>>>>>> sched_slice()) between normal tasks and the idle task play a role
> > >>>>>>> to.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Normal tasks get ~3ms whereas the idle task gets <0.01ms.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In fact that depends on the number of CPUs on the system
> > >>>>>> :sysctl_sched_latency = 6ms * (1 + ilog(ncpus)) . On a 8 cores
> > >>>>>> system,
> > >>>>>> normal task will run around 12ms in one shoot and the idle task still
> > >>>>>> one tick period
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> True. This is on a single CPU.
> > >>>> Agree. :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Also, you can increase even more the period between 2 runs of idle
> > >>>>>> task by using cgroups and min shares value : 2
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Ah yes, maybe this is what Jiang wants to do then? If his runtime does
> > >>>>> not have other requirements preventing this.
> > >>>> That could work for increasing the period between 2 runs. But could not
> > >>>> reduce the single runtime of idle task I guess, which means normal task
> > >>>> could have 1-tick schedule latency because of idle task.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes. An idle task will preempt an always running task during 1 tick
> > >>> every 680ms. But also you should keep in mind that a waking normal
> > >>> task will preempt the idle task immediately which means that it will
> > >>> not add scheduling latency to a normal task but "steal" 0.14% of
> > >>> normal task throughput (1/680) at most
> > >> That’s true. But in the VM case, when VM are busy(MWAIT passthrough
> > >> or running cpu eating works), the 1-tick scheduling latency could be
> > >> detected by cyclictest running in the VM.
> > >>
> > >> OTOH, we compensate vruntime in place_entity() to boot waking
> > >> without distinguish SCHED_IDLE task, do you think it’s necessary to
> > >> do that? like
> > >>
> > >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > >> @@ -4115,7 +4115,7 @@ place_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
> > >> sched_entity *se, int initial)
> > >> vruntime += sched_vslice(cfs_rq, se);
> > >>
> > >> /* sleeps up to a single latency don't count. */
> > >> - if (!initial) {
> > >> + if (!initial && likely(!task_has_idle_policy(task_of(se)))) {
> > >> unsigned long thresh = sysctl_sched_latency;
> > >
> > > Yeah, this is a good improvement.
> > Thanks, I’ll send a patch for that. :)
> >
> > > Does it solve your problem ?
> > >
> > Not exactly. :) I wonder if we can make SCHED_IDLE more pure(harmless)?
>
> We can't prevent it from running time to time. Proxy execution feature
> could be a step for considering to relax this constraint
>
Could you please help to explain more about the *Proxy execution feature*?
I'm not sure I got the right point.
Thanks a lot.
Regards,
Jiang
