[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080128023129.GD1044@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:01:29 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Guillaume Chazarain" <guichaz@...oo.fr>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: High wake up latencies with FAIR_USER_SCHED
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 09:01:15PM +0100, Guillaume Chazarain wrote:
> I noticed some strangely high wake up latencies with FAIR_USER_SCHED
> using this script:
<snip>
> We have two busy loops with UID=1.
> And UID=2 maintains the running median of its wake up latency.
> I get these latencies:
>
> # ./sched.py
> 4.300022 ms
> 4.801178 ms
> 4.604006 ms
Given that sysctl_sched_wakeup_granularity is set to 10ms by default,
this doesn't sound abnormal.
<snip>
> Disabling FAIR_USER_SCHED restores wake up latencies in the noise:
>
> # ./sched.py
> -0.156975 ms
> -0.067091 ms
> -0.022984 ms
The reason why we are getting better wakeup latencies for !FAIR_USER_SCHED is
because of this snippet of code in place_entity():
if (!initial) {
/* sleeps upto a single latency don't count. */
if (sched_feat(NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS) && entity_is_task(se))
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
vruntime -= sysctl_sched_latency;
/* ensure we never gain time by being placed backwards. */
vruntime = max_vruntime(se->vruntime, vruntime);
}
NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS feature gives credit for sleeping only to tasks and
not group-level entities. With the patch attached, I could see that wakeup
latencies with FAIR_USER_SCHED are restored to the same level as
!FAIR_USER_SCHED.
However I am not sure whether that is the way to go. We want to let one group of
tasks running as much as possible until the fairness/wakeup-latency threshold is
exceeded. If someone does want better wakeup latencies between groups too, they
can always tune sysctl_sched_wakeup_granularity.
<snip>
> Strangely enough, another way to restore normal latencies is to change
> setuid(2) to setuid(1), that is, putting the latency measurement in
> the same group as the two busy loops.
--
Regards,
vatsa
View attachment "fix.patch" of type "text/plain" (549 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists