Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Message-ID: <246dee1f-5e14-e075-13c7-ce876305cb54@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2023 21:42:13 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: introduce core_vruntime and
 core_min_vruntime
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20231115113341.13261-1-CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20231115113341.13261-4-CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20231115122027.GZ8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   cruzzhao <cruzzhao@linux.alibaba.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <20231115122027.GZ8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


在 2023/11/15 下午8:20, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:33:40PM +0800, Cruz Zhao wrote:
>> To compare the priority of sched_entity from different cpus of a core,
>> we introduce core_vruntime to struct sched_entity and core_min_vruntime
>> to struct cfs_rq.
>>
>> cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime records the min vruntime of the cfs_rqs
>> of the same task_group among the core, and se->core_vruntime is the
>> vruntime relative to se->cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime.
> 
> But that makes absolutely no sense. vruntime of different RQs can
> advance at wildly different rates. Not to mention there's this random
> offset between them.
> 
> No, this cannot be.

Force idle vruntime snapshot does the same thing, comparing
sea->vruntime - cfs_rqa->min_vruntime_fi with seb->vruntime -
cfs_rqb->min_vruntime_fi, while sea and seb may have wildly different rates.

Actually, cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime does the same thing as
cfs_rq->min_vruntime_fi, providing a baseline, but
cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime is more accurate.

I've tried to implement a fair enough mechanism of core_vruntime, but
it's too complex because of the weight, and it costs a lot. So this is a
compromise solution.

BTW, is there any other solutions to solve this problem?

Best,
Cruz Zhao