Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1183491
| From | Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] sched: let __sched_period() use rq's nr_running |
| Date | 2015-07-14 11:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pM4Hg-oF-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <pKBHl-3ui-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 05:11:30PM +0900, byungchul.park@lge.com wrote:
> From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
>
> __sched_period() returns a period which a rq can have. the period has to be
> stretched by the number of task *the rq has*, when nr_running > nr_latency.
> otherwise, task slice can be very smaller than sysctl_sched_min_granularity
> depending on the position of tg hierarchy when CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED.
hello all,
the sysctl_sched_min_granularity must be defined clearly at first. after
defining that clearly, the way to work can be set. the definition can
be either case 1 or case 2 below.
case 1. any task must have at least sysctl_sched_min_granularity slice, which
is currently 0.75ms. in this case, increasing the number of tasks in a rq can
cause stretching a whole latency, which most of you don't like because it can
stretch the whole latency too much. but it looks normal to me since it already
happens in !CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED world with the large number of tasks.
i wonder why CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED world must be different with
!CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED world? anyway...
case 2. tasks can have a slice much smaller than sysctl_sched_min_granularity,
according to the position in hierarchy. if a rq has 8 same weighted sched
entities and each entities has 8 same weighted sched entities and do it one
more, then a task can have a very small slice, e.g. 0.75ms / 64 ~ 0.01ms.
if you add more level to cgroup, it would get worse. in this situation,
context switching overhead becomes very large. what does it mean
sysctl_sched_min_granularity here? anyway...
i am not sure which is the right definition of sysctl_sched_min_granularity
between case 1 and case 2. what do you think about this?
thank you,
byungchul
>
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 09456fc..8ae7aeb 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -635,7 +635,7 @@ static u64 __sched_period(unsigned long nr_running)
> */
> static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> {
> - u64 slice = __sched_period(cfs_rq->nr_running + !se->on_rq);
> + u64 slice = __sched_period(rq_of(cfs_rq)->nr_running + !se->on_rq);
>
> for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> struct load_weight *load;
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v2] sched: let __sched_period() use rq's nr_running byungchul.park@lge.com - 2015-07-10 10:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] sched: let __sched_period() use rq's nr_running Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 09:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] sched: let __sched_period() use rq's nr_running Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2015-07-13 10:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] sched: let __sched_period() use rq's nr_running Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 12:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] sched: let __sched_period() use rq's nr_running Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2015-07-13 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] sched: let __sched_period() use rq's nr_running Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 14:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] sched: let __sched_period() use rq's nr_running Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-07-13 10:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] sched: let __sched_period() use rq's nr_running Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2015-07-13 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] sched: let __sched_period() use rq's nr_running Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2015-07-14 11:30 +0200
csiph-web