Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933351AbYBMQfw (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:35:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932574AbYBMQfS (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:35:18 -0500 Received: from E23SMTP02.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.163]:45894 "EHLO e23smtp02.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763532AbYBMQfP (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:35:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:04:44 +0530 From: Dhaval Giani To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar , lkml Subject: Re: Regression in latest sched-git Message-ID: <20080213163444.GA19570@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Dhaval Giani References: <20080212185355.GA6320@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1202845208.6247.82.camel@lappy> <20080213030035.GA3402@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1202907078.20209.3.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1202907078.20209.3.camel@lappy> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3315 Lines: 79 On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 01:51:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 08:30 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 08:40:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Yes, latency isolation is the one thing I had to sacrifice in order to > > > get the normal latencies under control. > > > > Hi Peter, > > I don't have easy solution in mind either to meet both fairness > > and latency goals in a acceptable way. > > Ah, do be careful with 'fairness' here. The single RQ is fair wrt cpu > time, just not quite as 'fair' wrt to latency. > > > But I am puzzled at the max latency numbers you have provided below: > > > > > The problem with the old code is that under light load: a kernel make > > > -j2 as root, under an otherwise idle X session, generates latencies up > > > to 120ms on my UP laptop. (uid grouping; two active users: peter, root). > > > > If it was just two active users, then max latency should be: > > > > latency to schedule user entity (~10ms?) + > > latency to schedule task within that user > > > > 20-30 ms seems more reaonable max latency to expect in this scenario. > > 120ms seems abnormal, unless the user had large number of tasks. > > > > On the same lines, I cant understand how we can be seeing 700ms latency > > (below) unless we had: large number of active groups/users and large number of > > tasks within each group/user. > > All I can say it that its trivial to reproduce these horrid latencies. > Hi Peter, I've been trying to reproduce the latencies, and the worst I have managed only 80ms. At an average I am getting around 60 ms. This is with a make -j4 as root, and dhaval running other programs. (with maxcpus=1). > As for Ingo's setup, the worst that he does is run distcc with (32?) > instances on that machine - and I assume he has that user niced waay > down. > > > > Others have reported latencies up to 300ms, and Ingo found a 700ms > > > latency on his machine. > > > > > > The source for this problem is I think the vruntime driven wakeup > > > preemption (but I'm not quite sure). The other things that rely on > > > global vruntime are sleeper fairness and yield. Now while I can't > > > possibly care less about yield, the loss of sleeper fairness is somewhat > > > sad (NB. turning it off with the old group scheduling does improve life > > > somewhat). > > > > > > So my first attempt at getting a global vruntime was flattening the > > > whole RQ structure, you can see that patch in sched.git (I really ought > > > to have posted that, will do so tomorrow). > > > > We will do some exhaustive testing with this approach. My main concern > > with this is that it may compromise the level of isolation between two > > groups (imagine one group does a fork-bomb and how it would affect > > fairness for other groups). > > Again, be careful with the fairness issue. CPU time should still be > fair, but yes, other groups might experience some latencies. > I know I am missing something, but aren't we trying to reduce latencies here? -- regards, Dhaval -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/