Message-ID: <1364870126.9544.5.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] sched: don't consider upper se in sched_slice()
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 04:35:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20130402022556.GD16699@lge.com>
References: <1364457537-15114-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
	 <1364457537-15114-5-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
	 <51553EF5.90702@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130401040820.GA12015@lge.com>
	 <5159320C.4050903@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130402022556.GD16699@lge.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2300
Lines: 60

On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 11:25 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: 
> Hello, Preeti.
> 
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:36:52PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> > Hi Joonsoo,
> > 
> > On 04/01/2013 09:38 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > Hello, Preeti.
> > > 
> > 
> > >>
> > >> Ideally the children's cpu share must add upto the parent's share.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > I don't think so.
> > > 
> > > We should schedule out the parent tg if 5ms is over. As we do so, we can
> > > fairly distribute time slice to every tg within short term. If we add
> > > the children's cpu share upto the parent's, the parent tg may have
> > > large time slice, so it cannot be preempted easily. There may be a latency
> > > problem if there are many tgs.
> > 
> > In the case where the #running < sched_nr_latency, the children's
> > sched_slices add up to the parent's.
> > 
> > A rq with two tgs,each with 3 tasks.
> > 
> > Each of these tasks have a sched slice of
> > [(sysctl_sched_latency / 3) / 2] as of the present implementation.
> > 
> > The sum of the above sched_slice of all tasks of a tg will lead to the
> > sched_slice of its parent: sysctl_sched_latency / 2
> > 
> > This breaks when the nr_running on each tg > sched_nr_latency. However I
> > don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
> 
> Ah.. Now I get your point. Yes, you are right and it may be good thing.
> With that property, all tasks in the system can be scheduled at least once
> in sysctl_sched_latency. sysctl_sched_latency is system-wide configuration,
> so my patch may be wrong. With my patch, all tasks in the system cannot be
> scheduled at least once in sysctl_sched_latency. Instead, it schedule
> all tasks in cfs_rq at least once in sysctl_sched_latency if there is
> no other tgs.
> 
> I think that it is real problem that sysctl_sched_min_granularity is not
> guaranteed for each task.
> Instead of this patch, how about considering low bound?
> 
> if (slice < sysctl_sched_min_granularity)
> 	slice = sysctl_sched_min_granularity;

How many SCHED_IDLE or +nice tasks will fit in that?

-Mike

--
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/