[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18fdcd2b-9064-6895-5948-feed65f96e35@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:43:15 +0800
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>
Cc: Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3
On 2019/7/22 18:26, Aubrey Li wrote:
> The granularity period of util_avg seems too large to decide task priority
> during pick_task(), at least it is in my case, cfs_prio_less() always picked
> core max task, so pick_task() eventually picked idle, which causes this change
> not very helpful for my case.
>
> <idle>-0 [057] dN.. 83.716973: __schedule: max: sysbench/2578
> ffff889050f68600
> <idle>-0 [057] dN.. 83.716974: __schedule:
> (swapper/5/0;140,0,0) ?< (mysqld/2511;119,1042118143,0)
> <idle>-0 [057] dN.. 83.716975: __schedule:
> (sysbench/2578;119,96449836,0) ?< (mysqld/2511;119,1042118143,0)
> <idle>-0 [057] dN.. 83.716975: cfs_prio_less: picked
> sysbench/2578 util_avg: 20 527 -507 <======= here===
> <idle>-0 [057] dN.. 83.716976: __schedule: pick_task cookie
> pick swapper/5/0 ffff889050f68600
Can you share your setup of the test? I would like to try it locally.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists