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: <20230328092622.062917921@infradead.org> <20230328110354.562078801@infradead.org>
 <CAKfTPtAkFBw5zt0+WK7dWBUE9OrbOOExG8ueUE6ogdCEQZhpXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230404092936.GD284733@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20230404135050.GA471948@google.com>
 <20230405083543.GZ4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20230405083543.GZ4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 16:05:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YQmG83_Yb9JgXapt9RgAs4m=fHnrOKRqfG9N_VMYcA88A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/17] sched/eevdf: Better handle mixed slice length
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, mingo@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        qyousef@layalina.io, chris.hyser@oracle.com,
        patrick.bellasi@matbug.net, pjt@google.com, pavel@ucw.cz,
        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, efault@gmx.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 4:36=E2=80=AFAM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 01:50:50PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:29:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Heh, this is actually the correct behaviour. If you have a u=3D1 and =
a
> > > u=3D.5 task, you should distribute time on a 2:1 basis, eg. 67% vs 33=
%.
> >
> > Splitting like that sounds like starvation of the sleeper to me. If som=
ething
> > sleeps a lot, it will get even less CPU time on an average than it woul=
d if
> > there was no contention from the u=3D1 task.
>
> No, sleeping, per definition, means you're not contending for CPU. What
> CFS does, giving them a little boost, is strictly yuck and messes with
> latency -- because suddenly you have a task that said it wasn't
> competing appear as if it were, but you didn't run it (how could you, it
> wasn't there to run) -- but it still needs to catch up.
>
> The reason it does that, is mostly because at the time we didn't want to
> do the whole lag thing -- it's somewhat heavy on the u64 mults and 32bit
> computing was still a thing :/ So hacks happened.

Also you have the whole "boost tasks" that sleep a lot with CFS right?
 Like a task handling user input sleeps a lot, but when it wakes up,
it gets higher dynamic priority as its vruntime did not advance. I
guess EEVDF also gets you the same thing but still messes with the CPU
usage?

> That said; I'm starting to regret not pushing the EEVDF thing harder
> back in 2010 when I first wrote it :/
>
> > And also CGroups will be even more weird than it already is in such a w=
orld,
> > 2 different containers will not get CPU time distributed properly- say =
if
> > tasks in one container sleep a lot and tasks in another container are C=
PU
> > bound.
>
> Cgroups are an abomination anyway :-) /me runs like hell. But no, I
> don't actually expect too much trouble there.

So, with 2 equally weighted containers, if one has a task that sleeps
50% of the time, and another has a 100% task, then the sleeper will
only run 33% of the time? I can see people running containers having a
problem with that (a customer running one container gets less CPU than
the other.). Sorry if I missed something.

But yeah I do find the whole EEVDF idea interesting but I admit I have
to research it more.

 - Joel