Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200801023248.90104-1-benbjiang@gmail.com> <5ed0fd46-3a3d-3c1a-5d75-03a74864e640@arm.com>
 <592F24A7-BF43-457D-AC40-DC5E35279730@tencent.com> <8bef1f94-f9bf-08a5-2ff3-3485d7796a96@arm.com>
 <8629CB9F-AFC8-43D6-BD14-B60A0B85ADB3@tencent.com> <5f870781-1648-b4ac-6026-557dfc347109@arm.com>
 <CCA1D942-3669-4216-92BD-768967B1ECE5@tencent.com> <4964e359-afc5-a256-4950-853a9485eeff@arm.com>
 <70236E62-AA36-48C1-9382-86353649253C@tencent.com> <3a1047fc-a86a-014a-b17a-eae71f669da1@arm.com>
 <643B0ECE-D758-4D08-8B1B-C70F34DD9943@tencent.com> <55f04582-69d6-aeb4-85be-3e46a3b15beb@arm.com>
 <755BFAD0-9072-4D73-9CD7-AF4F74A79D21@tencent.com> <729675a2-b083-4211-62c0-f7ed7f483ae2@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtATf94n4t6EnB5_76ygox26xd9EwvEHiv5cGN=E9BdLgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb7456af-6a4d-874c-e635-8d21e1ab3efc@arm.com> <A8E52241-0206-447D-9EA0-699F8F82AFAB@tencent.com>
In-Reply-To: <A8E52241-0206-447D-9EA0-699F8F82AFAB@tencent.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:55:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBiZHwkhCkMQs9iOF=eBLgubsJkARN5zOKZzmfo_jTJzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: reduce preemption with IDLE tasks
 runable(Internet mail)
To:     =?UTF-8?B?YmVuYmppYW5nKOiSi+W9qik=?= <benbjiang@tencent.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "juri.lelli@redhat.com" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        "rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "bsegall@google.com" <bsegall@google.com>,
        "mgorman@suse.de" <mgorman@suse.de>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 16:27, benbjiang(=E8=92=8B=E5=BD=AA) <benbjiang@tenc=
ent.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 2020, at 7:55 PM, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com=
> wrote:
> >
> > On 19/08/2020 13:05, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 12:46, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.c=
om> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 17/08/2020 14:05, benbjiang(=E8=92=8B=E5=BD=AA) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Aug 17, 2020, at 4:57 PM, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm=
.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 14/08/2020 01:55, benbjiang(=E8=92=8B=E5=BD=AA) wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Aug 13, 2020, at 2:39 AM, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@a=
rm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 12/08/2020 05:19, benbjiang(=E8=92=8B=E5=BD=AA) wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2020, at 11:54 PM, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggeman=
n@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/08/2020 02:41, benbjiang(=E8=92=8B=E5=BD=AA) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 2020, at 9:24 PM, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggema=
nn@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 06/08/2020 17:52, benbjiang(=E8=92=8B=E5=BD=AA) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem=
ann@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2020 13:26, benbjiang(=E8=92=8B=E5=BD=AA) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 3, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.egg=
emann@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/08/2020 04:32, Jiang Biao wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>>> Are you sure about this?
> >>>> Yes. :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The math is telling me for the:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> idle task:      (3 / (1024 + 1024 + 3))^(-1) * 4ms =3D 2735ms
> >>>>>
> >>>>> normal task: (1024 / (1024 + 1024 + 3))^(-1) * 4ms =3D    8ms
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (4ms - 250 Hz)
> >>>> My tick is 1ms - 1000HZ, which seems reasonable for 600ms? :)
> >>>
> >>> OK, I see.
> >>>
> >>> But here the different sched slices (check_preempt_tick()->
> >>> sched_slice()) between normal tasks and the idle task play a role to.
> >>>
> >>> Normal tasks get ~3ms whereas the idle task gets <0.01ms.
> >>
> >> In fact that depends on the number of CPUs on the system
> >> :sysctl_sched_latency =3D 6ms * (1 + ilog(ncpus)) . On a 8 cores syste=
m,
> >> normal task will run around 12ms in one shoot and the idle task still
> >> one tick period
> >
> > True. This is on a single CPU.
> Agree. :)
>
> >
> >> Also, you can increase even more the period between 2 runs of idle
> >> task by using cgroups and min shares value : 2
> >
> > Ah yes, maybe this is what Jiang wants to do then? If his runtime does
> > not have other requirements preventing this.
> That could work for increasing the period between 2 runs. But could not
> reduce the single runtime of idle task I guess, which means normal task
> could have 1-tick schedule latency because of idle task.

Yes.  An idle task will preempt an always running task during 1 tick
every 680ms. But also you should keep in mind that a waking normal
task will preempt the idle task immediately which means that it will
not add scheduling latency to a normal task but "steal" 0.14% of
normal task throughput (1/680) at most

> OTOH, cgroups(shares) could introduce extra complexity. :)
>
> I wonder if there=E2=80=99s any possibility to make SCHED_IDLEs=E2=80=99 =
priorities absolutely
> lower than SCHED_NORMAL(OTHER), which means no weights/shares
> for them, and they run only when no other task=E2=80=99s runnable.
> I guess there may be priority inversion issue if we do that. But maybe we

Exactly, that's why we must ensure a minimum running time for sched_idle ta=
sk

> could avoid it by load-balance more aggressively, or it(priority inversio=
n)
> could be ignored in some special case.
>
> Thx.
> Regard,
> Jiang
>
> >
> > [...]
>