Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753937AbZCHRxT (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:53:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752842AbZCHRxI (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:53:08 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:49151 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751647AbZCHRxH (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:53:07 -0400 Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 18:52:55 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Balazs Scheidler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: scheduler oddity [bug?] Message-ID: <20090308175255.GA22802@elte.hu> References: <1236448069.16726.21.camel@bzorp.balabit> <1236505323.6281.57.camel@marge.simson.net> <1236506309.6972.8.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090308153956.GB19658@elte.hu> <1236529200.7110.16.camel@marge.simson.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1236529200.7110.16.camel@marge.simson.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1864 Lines: 55 * Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 16:39 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > The problem with your particular testcase is that while one > > > half has an avg_overlap (what we use as affinity hint for > > > synchronous wakeups) which triggers the affinity hint, the > > > other half has avg_overlap of zero, what it was born with, so > > > despite significant execution overlap, the scheduler treats > > > them as if they were truly synchronous tasks. > > > > hm, why does it stay on zero? > > Wakeup preemption. Presuming here: heavy task wakes light > task, is preempted, light task stuffs data into pipe, heavy > task doesn't block, so no avg_overlap is ever computed. The > heavy task uses 100% CPU. > > Running as SCHED_BATCH (virgin source), it becomes sane. ah. I'd argue then that time spent on the rq preempted _should_ count in avg_overlap statistics. I.e. couldnt we do something like ... your patch? :) > > if (sleep && p->se.last_wakeup) { > > update_avg(&p->se.avg_overlap, > > p->se.sum_exec_runtime - p->se.last_wakeup); > > p->se.last_wakeup = 0; > > - } > > + } else if (p->se.avg_overlap < limit && runtime >= limit) > > + update_avg(&p->se.avg_overlap, runtime); Just done unconditionally, i.e. something like: if (sleep) { runtime = p->se.sum_exec_runtime - p->se.last_wakeup; p->se.last_wakeup = 0; } else { runtime = p->se.sum_exec_runtime - p->se.prev_sum_exec_runtime; } update_avg(&p->se.avg_overlap, runtime); ? Ingo -- 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/