[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABk29NsBEZ63eQ-avDBHe1LYj+wJNSTkCxPDQ=eTNS9_i9e0NA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 17:30:35 -0700
From: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To: chenying <chenying.kernel@...edance.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
duanxiongchun@...edance.com, zhouchengming@...edance.com,
songmuchun@...edance.com, zhengqi.arch@...edance.com,
zhoufeng.zf@...edance.com, ligang.bdlg@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: prioritize normal
task over sched_idle task with vruntime offset
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 3:07 AM chenying <chenying.kernel@...edance.com> wrote:
>
> If I set the sched_idle_vruntime_offset to a relatively small value
> (e.g. 10 minutes), can this issues be avoided?
That's still long enough to cause lockups.
Is the issue that you have a large number of sched_idle entities, and
the occasional latency sensitive thing that wakes up for a short
duration? Have you considered approaching this from the other
direction (ie. if we have a latency sensitive thing wake onto a cpu
running only sched idle stuff, we could change entity placement to
position the latency sensitive thing further left on the timeline,
akin to !GENTLE_FAIR_SLEEPERS).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists