MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230306132418.50389-1-zhangqiao22@huawei.com>
 <20230309130524.GA273121@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAKfTPtAf5RrzZRSHtfK+r3QvnFQ-oM3+rJ-z5SB8T4+nUv1aQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230309142825.GB273121@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <ZAnvCGdlOrWbIC/o@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <ZAnvCGdlOrWbIC/o@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 16:14:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtADUas2QHZCQyu0ad-JTKRQ=PcsB=o7+PuJNVxHwAzkCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: sanitize vruntime of entity being migrated
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@huawei.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, rkagan@amazon.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 15:37, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 03:28:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 02:34:05PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> > > Then, even if we don't clear exec_start before migrating and keep
> > > current value to be used in place_entity on the new cpu, we can't
> > > compare the rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)) of 2 different rqs AFAICT
> >
> > Blergh -- indeed, irq and steal time can skew them between CPUs :/
> > I suppose we can fudge that... wait_start (which is basically what we're
> > making it do) also does that IIRC.
> >
> > I really dislike having this placement muck spreadout like proposed.
>
> Also, I think we might be over-engineering this, we don't care about
> accuracy at all, all we really care about is 'long-time'.

you mean taking the patch 1/2 that you mentioned here to add a
migrated field:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/68832dfbb60fda030540b5f4e39c5801942689b1.1648228023.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com/T/#ma5637eb8010f3f4a4abff778af8db705429d003b

And assume that the divergence between the rq_clock_task() can be ignored ?

That could probably work but we need to replace the (60LL *
NSEC_PER_SEC) by ((1ULL << 63) / NICE_0_LOAD) because 60sec divergence
would not be unrealistic.
and a comment to explain why it's acceptable


>
>