[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bdddc6f5-5e17-445b-bd86-dc14a8d17866@bytedance.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 19:49:52 +0800
From: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, 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: Re: [PATCH 05/15] sched/fair: Implement an EEVDF like policy
On 10/11/23 3:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra Wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 12:14:30PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
>
>> there are cases worthy of breaking the 'eligible' rule.
>
> See the discussion with Youssef, if we weaken the eligible rule you get
> horrific interference because you end up placing new tasks around the
> 0-lag point.
I have just begun studying the EEVDF scheduler, and obviously there
are lots of things to catch up with :)
At a quick glance at Youssef's first reply, I'm sure that's exactly
the same as I thought about, the EVDF. The intention behind is w/o
eligibility the task_timeline can be organized by deadline rather
than vruntime, hence task selection can be done in O(1) while the
min_vruntime can be updated through augmented rbtree.
Anyway, I will learn from your discussion with Youssef first, thanks
for providing the info!
Best,
Abel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists