On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 06:02:05PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> and then
> se->vruntime = max_vruntime(se->vruntime, vruntime)
>
First things first, I was wrong to assume a "boost" in the CFS code. So I
dug a bit deeper and tried to pinpoint what the difference between CFS and
EEVDF actual
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 13:18, Tobias Huschle wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 02:51:00PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 08:04, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > > There was no guarantee of course. place_entity was reducing the vruntime
> > > of
> > > woken up tasks though, gi
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 02:51:00PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 08:04, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > There was no guarantee of course. place_entity was reducing the vruntime of
> > woken up tasks though, giving it a slight boost, right?. For the scenario
>
> It was rather th
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 08:04, Tobias Huschle wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 02:41:14PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 10:08, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > >
...
> > >
> > > Haven't seen that one yet. Unfortunately, it does not help to ignore the
> > > eligibility.
> > >
On 3/20/24 07:04, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 02:41:14PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 10:08, Tobias Huschle wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2024-03-18 15:45, Luis Machado wrote:
On 3/14/24 13:45, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:11:38PM +
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 02:41:14PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 10:08, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> >
> > On 2024-03-18 15:45, Luis Machado wrote:
> > > On 3/14/24 13:45, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:11:38PM +, Luis Machado wrote:
> > >>> On 2/28
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 10:08, Tobias Huschle wrote:
>
> On 2024-03-18 15:45, Luis Machado wrote:
> > On 3/14/24 13:45, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:11:38PM +, Luis Machado wrote:
> >>> On 2/28/24 16:10, Tobias Huschle wrote:
>
> Questions:
> 1. The kwork
On 2024-03-18 15:45, Luis Machado wrote:
On 3/14/24 13:45, Tobias Huschle wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:11:38PM +, Luis Machado wrote:
On 2/28/24 16:10, Tobias Huschle wrote:
Questions:
1. The kworker getting its negative lag occurs in the following
scenario
- kworker and a cgrou
On 3/14/24 13:45, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:11:38PM +, Luis Machado wrote:
>> On 2/28/24 16:10, Tobias Huschle wrote:
>>>
>>> Questions:
>>> 1. The kworker getting its negative lag occurs in the following scenario
>>>- kworker and a cgroup are supposed to execute on
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:11:38PM +, Luis Machado wrote:
> On 2/28/24 16:10, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> >
> > Questions:
> > 1. The kworker getting its negative lag occurs in the following scenario
> >- kworker and a cgroup are supposed to execute on the same CPU
> >- one task within the
Hi Tobias,
On 2/28/24 16:10, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> The previously used CFS scheduler gave tasks that were woken up an
> enhanced chance to see runtime immediately by deducting a certain value
> from its vruntime on runqueue placement during wakeup.
>
> This property was used by some, at least v
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 09:06:16AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> (+ Xuewen Yan, Ke Wang)
>
> Hello Tobias,
>
<...>
> >
> > Questions:
> > 1. The kworker getting its negative lag occurs in the following scenario
> >- kworker and a cgroup are supposed to execute on the same CPU
> >- one
(+ Xuewen Yan, Ke Wang)
Hello Tobias,
On 2/28/2024 9:40 PM, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> The previously used CFS scheduler gave tasks that were woken up an
> enhanced chance to see runtime immediately by deducting a certain value
> from its vruntime on runqueue placement during wakeup.
>
> This prope
13 matches
Mail list logo
