On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 03:52:48PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:15:28AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:21:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > >
> > > > yuyang said that switched_to don't need to consider task's load because
> > > > it
> > > > can have meaningless value. but i think considering task's load is
> > > > better
> > > > than leaving it unattended at all. and we can also use switched_to if
> > > > we
> > > > consider task's load in switched_to.
> > >
> > > when did I say "don't need to consider..."?
> > >
> > > Doing more does not mean better, or just trivial. BTW, the task
> > > switched_to
> > > does not have to be switched_from before.
> >
> > Correct, there's a few corner cases we need to consider.
> >
> > However, I think we unconditionally call init_entity_runnable_average()
> > on all tasks, regardless of their 'initial' sched class, so it should
> > have a valid state.
> >
> > Another thing to consider is the state being very stale, suppose it
> > started live as FAIR, ran for a bit, got switched to !FAIR by means of
> > sys_sched_setscheduler()/sys_sched_setattr() or similar, runs for a long
> > time and for some reason gets switched back to FAIR, we need to age and
> > or re-init things.
>
> hello,
>
> what do you think about this approch for solving this problem ?
> it makes se's loads decay for detached periods for that rq. and i used
> rq instead of cfs_rq because it does not have dependency to cfs_rq
> any more.
to be honest with you, i am not sure what kind of clock do i have to
use for the detached se's decaying in this approach..
do you think it's better to use sched_clock() instead of rq task clock?
after checking if this appoach is feasible or not, and then i need to
choose a appropriate clock..
thanks,
byungchul
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 5b50082..8f5e2de 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1191,6 +1191,8 @@ struct load_weight {
> */
> struct sched_avg {
> u64 last_update_time, load_sum;
> + u64 last_detached_time;
> + int last_detached_cpu;
> u32 util_sum, period_contrib;
> unsigned long load_avg, util_avg;
> };
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 72d13af..b2d22c8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -673,6 +673,8 @@ void init_entity_runnable_average(struct sched_entity *se)
> struct sched_avg *sa = &se->avg;
>
> sa->last_update_time = 0;
> + sa->last_detached_time = 0;
> + sa->last_detached_cpu = -1;
> /*
> * sched_avg's period_contrib should be strictly less then 1024, so
> * we give it 1023 to make sure it is almost a period (1024us), and
> @@ -2711,16 +2713,47 @@ static inline void update_load_avg(struct
> sched_entity *se, int update_tg)
>
> static void attach_entity_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
> sched_entity *se)
> {
> - se->avg.last_update_time = cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time;
> - cfs_rq->avg.load_avg += se->avg.load_avg;
> - cfs_rq->avg.load_sum += se->avg.load_sum;
> - cfs_rq->avg.util_avg += se->avg.util_avg;
> - cfs_rq->avg.util_sum += se->avg.util_sum;
> + struct sched_avg *sa = &se->avg;
> + int cpu = sa->last_detached_cpu;
> + u64 delta;
> +
> + if (cpu != -1) {
> + delta = rq_clock_task(cpu_rq(cpu)) - sa->last_detached_time;
> + /*
> + * compute the number of period passed, where a period is 1
> msec,
> + * since the entity had detached from the rq, and ignore
> decaying
> + * delta which is less than a period for fast calculation.
> + */
> + delta >>= 20;
> + if (!delta)
> + goto do_attach;
> +
> + sa->load_sum = decay_load(sa->load_sum, delta);
> + sa->util_sum = decay_load((u64)(sa->util_sum), delta);
> + sa->load_avg = div_u64(sa->load_sum, LOAD_AVG_MAX);
> + sa->util_avg = (sa->util_sum << SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT) /
> LOAD_AVG_MAX;
> + }
> +
> +do_attach:
> + sa->last_detached_cpu = -1;
> + sa->last_detached_time = 0;
> + sa->period_contrib = 0;
> +
> + sa->last_update_time = cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time;
> + cfs_rq->avg.load_avg += sa->load_avg;
> + cfs_rq->avg.load_sum += sa->load_sum;
> + cfs_rq->avg.util_avg += sa->util_avg;
> + cfs_rq->avg.util_sum += sa->util_sum;
> }
>
> static void detach_entity_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
> sched_entity *se)
> {
> - __update_load_avg(cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time, cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq)),
> + int cpu = cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq));
> +
> + se->avg.last_detached_cpu = cpu;
> + se->avg.last_detached_time = rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq));
> +
> + __update_load_avg(cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time, cpu,
> &se->avg, se->on_rq * scale_load_down(se->load.weight),
> cfs_rq->curr == se, NULL);
>
> >
> > I _think_ we can use last_update_time for that, but I've not looked too
> > hard.
> >
> > That is, age based on last_update_time, if all 0, reinit, or somesuch.
> >
> >
> > The most common case of switched_from()/switched_to() is Priority
> > Inheritance, and that typically results in very short lived stints as
> > !FAIR and the avg data should be still accurate by the time we return.
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
