[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <75adcb1a-c02f-4d7c-bd9c-ab4f403af3e8@bytedance.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:15:28 +0800
From: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
qyousef@...alina.io, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, pjt@...gle.com, pavel@....cz,
qperret@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, joshdon@...gle.com,
timj@....org, kprateek.nayak@....com, yu.c.chen@...el.com,
youssefesmat@...omium.org, joel@...lfernandes.org, efault@....de,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] sched/fair: Add avg_vruntime
On 5/31/23 7:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +/*
> + * Compute virtual time from the per-task service numbers:
> + *
> + * Fair schedulers conserve lag:
> + *
> + * \Sum lag_i = 0
> + *
> + * Where lag_i is given by:
> + *
> + * lag_i = S - s_i = w_i * (V - v_i)
Since the ideal service time S is task-specific, should this be:
lag_i = S_i - s_i = w_i * (V - v_i)
> + *
> + * Where S is the ideal service time and V is it's virtual time counterpart.
> + * Therefore:
> + *
> + * \Sum lag_i = 0
> + * \Sum w_i * (V - v_i) = 0
> + * \Sum w_i * V - w_i * v_i = 0
> + *
> + * From which we can solve an expression for V in v_i (which we have in
> + * se->vruntime):
> + *
> + * \Sum v_i * w_i \Sum v_i * w_i
> + * V = -------------- = --------------
> + * \Sum w_i W
> + *
> + * Specifically, this is the weighted average of all entity virtual runtimes.
> + *
> + * [[ NOTE: this is only equal to the ideal scheduler under the condition
> + * that join/leave operations happen at lag_i = 0, otherwise the
> + * virtual time has non-continguous motion equivalent to:
> + *
> + * V +-= lag_i / W
> + *
> + * Also see the comment in place_entity() that deals with this. ]]
> + *
> + * However, since v_i is u64, and the multiplcation could easily overflow
> + * transform it into a relative form that uses smaller quantities:
> + *
> + * Substitute: v_i == (v_i - v0) + v0
> + *
> + * \Sum ((v_i - v0) + v0) * w_i \Sum (v_i - v0) * w_i
> + * V = ---------------------------- = --------------------- + v0
> + * W W
> + *
> + * Which we track using:
> + *
> + * v0 := cfs_rq->min_vruntime
> + * \Sum (v_i - v0) * w_i := cfs_rq->avg_vruntime
IMHO 'sum_runtime' would be more appropriate? Since it actually is
the summed real time rather than virtual time. And also 'sum_load'
instead of 'avg_load'.
Thanks & Best,
Abel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists