lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 07/10] sched,cfs: fix zero length timeslice calculation
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 22:49, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
>
> The way the time slice length is currently calculated, not only do high
> priority tasks get longer time slices than low priority tasks, but due
> to fixed point math, low priority tasks could end up with a zero length
> time slice. This can lead to cache thrashing and other inefficiencies.
>
> Simplify the logic a little bit, and cap the minimum time slice length
> to sysctl_sched_min_granularity.
>
> Tasks that end up getting a time slice length too long for their relative
> priority will simply end up having their vruntime advanced much faster than
> other tasks, resulting in them receiving time slices less frequently.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 25 ++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index d48bff5118fc..8da2823401ca 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -671,22 +671,6 @@ static inline u64 calc_delta_fair(u64 delta, struct sched_entity *se)
> return delta;
> }
>
> -/*
> - * The idea is to set a period in which each task runs once.
> - *
> - * When there are too many tasks (sched_nr_latency) we have to stretch
> - * this period because otherwise the slices get too small.
> - *
> - * p = (nr <= nl) ? l : l*nr/nl
> - */
> -static u64 __sched_period(unsigned long nr_running)
> -{
> - if (unlikely(nr_running > sched_nr_latency))
> - return nr_running * sysctl_sched_min_granularity;
> - else
> - return sysctl_sched_latency;
> -}
> -
> /*
> * We calculate the wall-time slice from the period by taking a part
> * proportional to the weight.
> @@ -695,7 +679,7 @@ 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 = sysctl_sched_latency;

Is the change above and the remove of __sched_period() really needed
for fixing the null time slice problem ?
This change impacts how tasks will preempt each other and as a result
the throughput. It should have it dedicated patch so we can evaluate
its impact

>
> for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> struct load_weight *load;
> @@ -712,6 +696,13 @@ static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> }
> slice = __calc_delta(slice, se->load.weight, load);
> }
> +
> + /*
> + * To avoid cache thrashing, run at least sysctl_sched_min_granularity.
> + * The vruntime of a low priority task advances faster; those tasks
> + * will simply get time slices less frequently.
> + */
> + slice = max_t(u64, slice, sysctl_sched_min_granularity);
> return slice;
> }
>
> --
> 2.20.1
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-05 16:52    [W:0.174 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site