Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <a7eed150-75aa-6385-06e4-0a8bb02b4460@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 19:24:00 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: favor non-idle group in tick preemption
To:     Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
Cc:     peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20221027081630.34081-1-zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
 <CABk29NtDny9qKZbZZ_i8Brwjtqs5GA0G4_SffzK4HzG3RrXVhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <64d963b6-2d9c-3f93-d427-a1ff705fb65a@bytedance.com>
 <CABk29NsbGuMPcA8NJagMfPyHij3864F3DVQ6wpCj3UAo8tbFNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5af26ac9-3bdb-32d2-77a7-6cd8feca97aa@bytedance.com>
 <CABk29Nt38d31LnazbcSVB036jUYemC1KRpR2Dn7YgLmXkp-QBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8142b5db-f543-57e6-0f68-f62274c0e379@bytedance.com>
 <CABk29Nsnx=PfeLMEsD0qsnh5-QTHLT4xVB3HmBgGAqqmWnkmvg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABk29Nsnx=PfeLMEsD0qsnh5-QTHLT4xVB3HmBgGAqqmWnkmvg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


在 2022/11/2 07:39, Josh Don 写道:
>>> Some weirdness about this change though, is that if there is a
>>> non-idle current entity, and the two next entities on the cfs_rq are
>>> idle and non-idle respectively, we'll now take longer to preempt the
>>> on-cpu non-idle entity, because the non-idle entity on the cfs_rq is
>>> 'hidden' by the idle 'first' entity. Wakeup preemption is different
>>> because we're always directly comparing the current entity with the
>>> newly woken entity.
>>>
>> You are right, this can happen with high probability.
>> This patch just compared the curr with the first entity in
>> the tick, and it seems hard to consider all the other entity
>> in cfs_rq.
>>
>> So, what specific negative effects this situation would cause?
>> For example, the "hidden" non-idle entity's latency will be worse
>> than before?
> 
> As Abel points out in his email, it can push out the time it'll take
> to switch to the other non-idle entity. The change might boost some
> benchmarks numbers, but I don't think it is conclusive enough to say
> it is a generically beneficial improvement that should be integrated.
> 
> By the way, I'm curious if you modified any of the sched_idle_cpu()
> and related load balancing around idle entities given that you've made
> it so that idle entities can have arbitrary weight (since, as I
> described in my prior email, this can otherwise cause issues there).
Hi Josh,

Indeed, there are some subtle influences here. For example,
find_idlest_group_cpu() may return i if sched_idle_cpu(i) is true.
In nromal cases, it would work well, however it would be unpredictable
if we change the default minumum weight. I have not found a suitable 
solution yet....

Thanks for your guidance.