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: <20230508160829.2756405-1-vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
 <20230509132534.09098acc@luca64> <CAO7JXPhrqKWfsp860rRmEenxARi8U2gNMGsOn4m+aKporWwBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230509224829.2fb547fd@nowhere> <20230509225417.61d36733@nowhere>
 <CAO7JXPhk5qbz9kmiu9WuXS+gXCt9+X8pP2c37hd9ChByLmXYjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230510090735.68f62cd4@nowhere> <CAO7JXPg03f2YnrmzoGjfHEZZcoN55cU7uVukMw31Bw3x6nnaMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230511093711.2be82409@nowhere>
In-Reply-To: <20230511093711.2be82409@nowhere>
From:   Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 14:34:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAO7JXPiKLFLVpqDKoRdu8c2Yd4AJ_2B2UyXJxD3kJAyiJ=n0_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: accurate reclaim bandwidth for GRUB
To:     luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi Luca,

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:37=E2=80=AFAM luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa=
.it> wrote:
>
> I've just seen v2, and (unless I misunderstand something) I see you
> removed the max{u_i/u_max, 1 - (u_inact + u_extra}} thing?
>
> I fear this might break the real-time guarantees provided by the
> algorithm...
>
I am sorry I missed sending more details before sending out v2. So, I
think there is another bug in the existing implementation. Let me try
to explain the details.

SMP GRUB paper has the equation for depreciating runtime as:
  dq_i =3D -max{u_i, 1 - (extra_bw + Uinact)} dt

Since we are caping at Umax, the equation would be
  dq_i =3D -(max{u_i, Umax - (extra_bw + Uinact)} / Umax) dt (1)

But existing implementation is:
  dq_i =3D -max{u_i/Umax, 1 - (extra_bw + Uinact)} dt (2)

Here in (2), we factored Umax only to the first term "u_i" and the
second term in max{} was as left as it is. What do you think?

Now with normal DL and SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM tasks, equation (1) can be
re-written as:
  dq_i =3D
   -(max{u_i, Ureclaim_max - (extra_bw + Uinact)}/Ureclaim_max)dt (3)

I tested this equation (3) and it works as expected. What do you think
about the correctness of equation (3)?

I felt that, since we are using sequential reclaim mentioned in the
paper and we isolate all parameters per-cpu(except for extra_bw) we
could use the "-dq =3D -(U/Umax) dt" equation as it was simpler than
equation (3). Sorry that I missed discussing this. I shall send out
v3 with equation (3), if you think it's the right way to go to enforce
deadline guarantees.

Thanks,
Vineeth