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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221110175009.18458-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20221110175009.18458-2-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <Y3Gwr2p5BcofuZ8e@google.com>
 <CAKfTPtD2A3QaMON_jkhaobY0Wy+LpnAnfhtuaozK_OkmSvuf8Q@mail.gmail.com> <Y3SefaraLvX2hPYj@ziqianlu-desk2>
In-Reply-To: <Y3SefaraLvX2hPYj@ziqianlu-desk2>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:18:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBX_3rZ_7sNUrt7isqa9wvJ1KZpe=Prsycq59iO+UWvxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] sched/fair: fix unfairness at wakeup
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, parth@linux.ibm.com,
        qyousef@layalina.io, chris.hyser@oracle.com,
        patrick.bellasi@matbug.net, David.Laight@aculab.com,
        pjt@google.com, pavel@ucw.cz, tj@kernel.org, qperret@google.com,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, joshdon@google.com, timj@gnu.org,
        kprateek.nayak@amd.com, yu.c.chen@intel.com,
        youssefesmat@chromium.org, riel@redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 at 09:26, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:05:18PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 04:06, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Vincent,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 06:50:01PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> ... ...
>
> > > > +static inline unsigned long  get_latency_max(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +     unsigned long thresh = get_sched_latency(false);
> > > > +
> > > > +     thresh -= sysctl_sched_min_granularity;
> > >
> > > Could you clarify, why are you subtracting sched_min_granularity here? Could
> > > you add some comments here to make it clear?
> >
> > If the waking task failed to preempt current it could to wait up to
> > sysctl_sched_min_granularity before preempting it during next tick.
>
> check_preempt_tick() compares vdiff/delta between the leftmost se and
> curr against curr's ideal_runtime, it doesn't use thresh here or the
> adjusted wakeup_gran, so I don't see why reducing thresh here can help
> se to preempt curr during next tick if it failed to preempt curr in its
> wakeup path.

If waking task doesn't preempt curr, it will wait for the next
check_preempt_tick(), but check_preempt_tick() ensures a minimum
runtime of sysctl_sched_min_granularity before comparing the vruntime.
Thresh doesn't help in check_preempt_tick() but anticipate the fact
that if it fails to preempt now, current can get an additional
sysctl_sched_min_granularity runtime before being preempted.

>
> I can see reducing thresh here with whatever value can help the waking
> se to preempt curr in wakeup_preempt_entity() though, because most
> likely the waking se's vruntime is cfs_rq->min_vruntime -
> sysctl_sched_latency/2 and curr->vruntime is near cfs_rq->min_vruntime
> so vdiff is about sysctl_sched_latency/2, which is the same value as
> get_sched_latency(false) and when thresh is reduced some bit, then vdiff
> in wakeup_preempt_entity() will be larger than gran and make it possible
> to preempt.
>
> So I'm confused by your comment or I might misread the code.