All the mail mirrored from lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
	wuyun.abel@bytedance.com, tglx@linutronix.de, efault@gmx.de,
	yu.chen.surf@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 08/10] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:06:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240408090639.GD21904@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZhEUjX1Nw0y2eJ1o@chenyu5-mobl2>

On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 05:23:25PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:

> The 99th wakeup latency increases a little bit, and should be in the acceptible
> range(25 -> 31 us).

Ah, my test runs haven't been stable enough to observe that.

> Meanwhile the throughput increases accordingly. Here are
> the possible reason I can think of:
> 
> 1. wakeup latency: The time to find an eligible entity in the tree
>    during wakeup might take longer - if there are more delayed-dequeue
>    tasks in the tree.

Another possible cause might be that previously a schedule() would be
1 dequeue, 1 pick.

But now it can be much more variable, a pick can basically do N dequeues
and N+1 picks.

So not only do we do more picks, but if you're focussed on worst case
latency, it goes up, because we can do multiple dequeues for a single
pick.

If we find this to really be a problem, I had some half baked ideas to
fix it, but it added significant complexity, so keep it simple until
need proves we need more etc.

> 2. throughput: Inhibit task dequeue can decrease the ratio to touch the
>    task group's load_avg: dequeue_entity()-> { update_load_avg(), update_cfs_group()),
>    which reduces the cache contention among CPUs, and improves throughput.

Ah, yes, there's that.

> > +	} else {
> > +		bool sleep = flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP;
> > +
> > +		SCHED_WARN_ON(sleep && se->sched_delayed);
> > +		update_curr(cfs_rq);
> > +
> > +		if (sched_feat(DELAY_DEQUEUE) && sleep &&
> > +		    !entity_eligible(cfs_rq, se)) {
> 
> Regarding the elibigle check, it was found that there could be an overflow
> issue, and it brings false negative of entity_eligible(), which was described here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240226082349.302363-1-yu.c.chen@intel.com/
> and also reported on another machine
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZeCo7STWxq+oyN2U@gmail.com/
> I don't have good idea to avoid that overflow properly, while I'm trying to
> reproduce it locally, do you have any guidance on how to address it?

I have not yet seen those, let me go stare at them now. Thanks!

  reply	other threads:[~2024-04-08  9:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-05 10:27 [RFC][PATCH 00/10] sched/fair: Complete EEVDF Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-05 10:27 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/10] sched/eevdf: Add feature comments Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-05 10:27 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/10] sched/eevdf: Remove min_vruntime_copy Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-05 10:27 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/10] sched/fair: Cleanup pick_task_fair() vs throttle Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-05 21:11   ` Benjamin Segall
2024-04-05 10:27 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/10] sched/fair: Cleanup pick_task_fair()s curr Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-05 10:27 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/10] sched/fair: Unify pick_{,next_}_task_fair() Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-06  2:20   ` Mike Galbraith
2024-04-05 10:28 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/10] sched: Allow sched_class::dequeue_task() to fail Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-05 10:28 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/10] sched/fair: Re-organize dequeue_task_fair() Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-05 10:28 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/10] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-06  9:23   ` Chen Yu
2024-04-08  9:06     ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2024-04-11  1:32       ` Yan-Jie Wang
2024-04-25 10:25         ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-12 10:42   ` K Prateek Nayak
2024-04-15 10:56     ` Mike Galbraith
2024-04-16  3:18       ` K Prateek Nayak
2024-04-16  5:36         ` Mike Galbraith
2024-04-18 16:24           ` Mike Galbraith
2024-04-18 17:08             ` K Prateek Nayak
2024-04-24 15:20             ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-25 11:28             ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-26 10:56               ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-26 11:16                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-26 16:03                   ` Mike Galbraith
2024-04-27  6:42                     ` Mike Galbraith
2024-04-28 16:32                       ` Mike Galbraith
2024-04-29 12:14                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-15 17:07   ` Luis Machado
2024-04-24 15:15     ` Luis Machado
2024-04-25 10:42       ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-25 11:49         ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-26  9:32           ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-26  9:36             ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-26 10:16             ` Luis Machado
2024-04-29 14:33             ` Luis Machado
2024-05-02 10:26               ` Luis Machado
2024-05-10 14:49                 ` Luis Machado
2024-05-15  9:36                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-05-15 11:48                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-05-15 18:03                       ` Mike Galbraith
2024-04-26 10:15         ` Luis Machado
2024-04-20  5:57   ` Mike Galbraith
2024-04-22 13:13   ` Tobias Huschle
2024-04-05 10:28 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/10] sched/eevdf: Allow shorter slices to wakeup-preempt Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-05 10:28 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/10] sched/eevdf: Use sched_attr::sched_runtime to set request/slice suggestion Peter Zijlstra
2024-04-06  8:16   ` Hillf Danton
2024-05-07  5:34   ` Mike Galbraith
2024-05-15 10:13     ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-05-07 15:15   ` Chen Yu
2024-05-08 13:52     ` Mike Galbraith
2024-05-09  3:48       ` Chen Yu
2024-05-09  5:00         ` Mike Galbraith
2024-05-13  4:07     ` K Prateek Nayak
2024-05-14  9:18       ` Chen Yu
2024-05-14 15:23         ` K Prateek Nayak
2024-05-14 16:15           ` Chen Yu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240408090639.GD21904@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=wuyun.abel@bytedance.com \
    --cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=yu.chen.surf@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.