[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] sched: rt: Make RT capacity aware
On 02/03/20 13:12, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 17:17:46 +0000
> Qais Yousef <> wrote:
> > I'm torn about pushing a task already on a big core to a little core if it says
> > it wants it (down migration).
> If the "down migration" happens to a process that is lower in priority,
> then that stays in line with the policy decisions of scheduling RT
> tasks. That is, higher priority task take precedence over lower
> priority tasks, even if that means "degrading" that lower priority task.
> For example, if a high priority task wakes up on a CPU that is running
> a lower priority task, and with the exception of that lower priority
> task being pinned, it will boot it off the CPU. Even if the lower
> priority task is pinned, it may still take over the CPU if it can't
> find another CPU.

Indeed this makes sense.

> > >
> > > 4. If a little core is returned, and we schedule an RT task that
> > > prefers big cores on it, we mark it overloaded.
> > >
> > > 5. An RT task on a big core schedules out. Start looking at the RT
> > > overloaded run queues.
> > >
> > > 6. See that there's an RT task on the little core, and migrate it over.
> >
> > I think the above should depend on the fitness of the cpu we currently run on.
> > I think we shouldn't down migrate, or at least investigate better down
> > migration makes more sense than keeping tasks running on the correct CPU where
> > they are.
> Note, this only happens when a big core CPU schedules. And if you do
> not have HAVE_RT_PUSH_IPI (which sends IPIs to overloaded CPUS and just
> schedules), then that "down migration" happens to an RT task that isn't
> even running.

In the light of strictly adhering to priority based scheduling; yes this makes
sense. Though I still think the migration will produce worse performance, but
I can appreciate even if that was true it breaks the strict priority rule.

> You can add to the logic that you do not take over an RT task that is
> pinned and can't move itself. Perhaps that may be the only change to

I get this.

> cpu_find(), is that it will only pick a big CPU if little CPUs are
> available if the big CPU doesn't have a pinned RT task on it.

But not that. Do you mind rephrasing it?

Or let me try first:

1. Search all priority levels for a fitting CPU
2. If failed, return the first lowest mask found
3. If it succeeds, remove any CPU that has a pinned task in it
4. If the lowest_mask is empty, return (2).
5. Else return the lowest_mask with the fitting CPU(s)

Did I get it right?

The idea is not to potentially overload that CPU when this pinned task wakes
up? The task could be sleeping waiting for something interesting to poke it..?

> Like you said, this is best effort, and I believe this is the best
> approach. The policy has always been the higher the priority of a task,
> the more likely it will push other tasks away. We don't change that. If
> the system administrator is overloading the big cores with RT tasks,
> then this is what they get.

Yes. I think that has always been the case with RT. It is very easy to shoot
yourself in the foot.

> >
> > > Note, this will require a bit more logic as the overloaded code wasn't
> > > designed for migration of running tasks, but that could be added.
> >
> > I'm wary of overloading the meaning of rt.overloaded. Maybe I can convert it to
> > a bitmap so that we can encode the reason.
> We can change the name to something like rt.needs_pull or whatever.

Thanks for bringing more clarity to this.


Qais Yousef

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-03 20:03    [W:0.064 / U:1.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site