Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 00:34:28 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Cc:     mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, 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,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, efault@gmx.de, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] sched/fair: Add lag based placement
Message-ID: <20231012223428.GP6307@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230531115839.089944915@infradead.org>
 <20230531124603.794929315@infradead.org>
 <xm26fs2fhcu7.fsf@bsegall-linux.svl.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <xm26fs2fhcu7.fsf@bsegall-linux.svl.corp.google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 12:15:12PM -0700, Benjamin Segall wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> 
> > @@ -4853,49 +4872,119 @@ static void
> >  place_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int initial)
> >  {
> >  	u64 vruntime = avg_vruntime(cfs_rq);
> > +	s64 lag = 0;
> >  
> > -	/* sleeps up to a single latency don't count. */
> > -	if (!initial) {
> > -		unsigned long thresh;
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Due to how V is constructed as the weighted average of entities,
> > +	 * adding tasks with positive lag, or removing tasks with negative lag
> > +	 * will move 'time' backwards, this can screw around with the lag of
> > +	 * other tasks.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * EEVDF: placement strategy #1 / #2
> > +	 */
> 
> So the big problem with EEVDF #1 compared to #2/#3 and CFS (hacky though
> it is) is that it creates a significant perverse incentive to yield or
> spin until you see yourself be preempted, rather than just sleep (if you
> have any competition on the cpu). If you go to sleep immediately after
> doing work and happen to do so near the end of a slice (arguably what
> you _want_ to have happen overall), then you have to pay that negative
> lag in wakeup latency later, because it is maintained through any amount
> of sleep. (#1 or similar is good for reweight/migrate of course)
> 
> #2 in theory could be abused by micro-sleeping right before you are
> preempted, but that isn't something tasks can really predict, unlike
> seeing more "don't go to sleep, just spin, the latency numbers are so
> much better" nonsense.

Right, so I do have this:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git/commit/?h=sched/eevdf&id=344944e06f11da25b49328825ed15fedd63036d3

That allows tasks to sleep away the lag -- with all the gnarly bits that
sleep time has. And it reliably fixes the above. However, it also
depresses a bunch of other stuff. Never a free lunch etc.

It is so far the least horrible of the things I've tried.