[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a35dd83b9ecadf4e136b588d7696a23e36ff2e9a.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:14:54 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, morten.rasmussen@....com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/15] sched,fair: propagate sum_exec_runtime up the
hierarchy
On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 09:51 +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 22/08/2019 04:17, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Now that enqueue_task_fair and dequeue_task_fair no longer iterate
> > up
> > the hierarchy all the time, a method to lazily propagate
> > sum_exec_runtime
> > up the hierarchy is necessary.
> >
> > Once a tick, propagate the newly accumulated exec_runtime up the
> > hierarchy,
> > and feed it into CFS bandwidth control.
> >
> > Remove the pointless call to account_cfs_rq_runtime from
> > update_curr,
> > which is always called with a root cfs_rq.
>
> But what about the call to account_cfs_rq_runtime() in
> set_curr_task_fair()? Here you always call it with the root cfs_rq.
> Shouldn't this be called also in a loop over all se's until !se-
> >parent
> (like in propagate_exec_runtime() further below).
I believe that call should be only on the cgroup
cfs_rq, with account_cfs_rq_runtime figuring out
whether more runtime needs to be obtained from
further up in the hierarchy.
By default we should probably work under the assumption
that account_cfs_rq_runtime() will succeed at the current
level, and no gymnastics are required to obtain CPU time.
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists