[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <446aeb22-55c4-4ef6-81cc-1d1d994d5268@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:51:29 +0800
From: Yiwei Lin <s921975628@...il.com>
To: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
Cc: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>,
Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/eevdf: Fix vruntime adjustment on reweight
On 11/16/23 13:07, Abel Wu wrote:
> On 11/16/23 12:48 PM, Abel Wu Wrote:
>> On 11/15/23 11:36 PM, Yiwei Lin Wrote:
>>>
>>>> @@ -3712,8 +3811,17 @@ static void reweight_entity(struct cfs_rq
>>>> *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se,
>>>> enqueue_load_avg(cfs_rq, se);
>>>> if (se->on_rq) {
>>>> update_load_add(&cfs_rq->load, se->load.weight);
>>>> - if (cfs_rq->curr != se)
>>>> - avg_vruntime_add(cfs_rq, se);
>>>> + if (!curr) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * The entity's vruntime has been adjusted, so let's
>>>> check
>>>> + * whether the rq-wide min_vruntime needs updated too.
>>>> Since
>>>> + * the calculations above require stable min_vruntime
>>>> rather
>>>> + * than up-to-date one, we do the update at the end of
>>>> the
>>>> + * reweight process.
>>>> + */
>>>> + __enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se);
>>>> + update_min_vruntime(cfs_rq);
>>>> + }
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>> Sorry if I am asking stupid question...... It looks like
>>> reweight_entity() may have chance to change the weight of
>>> cfs_rq->curr entity, but we'll never update_min_vruntime() when
>>> reweighting it. Is there any reason that we can skip the
>>> update_min_vruntime() for this case?
>>
>> No, you are right!
>
> I was intended to update_min_vruntime() if se->on_rq and no matter
> it is curr or not, just as you suggested. But after a second thought
> I wonder if it is necessary to update *NOW*, since we will always
> update_curr() before making any change to cfs_rq. Thoughts?
I lost the fact that we'll update_min_vruntime() every time we
update_curr(). Because of this fact, we can indeed wait until we need
the correct min_vruntime and update_min_vruntime() then. The only
consideration that I came up with is that the sched_debug may not be
able to reflect the accurate min_vruntime in time. But this may not be a
big problem.
Further, I have another advanced thought we can remove the
update_min_vruntime() here in the reweight_entity() directly to save
more time. The reason that I think this is because min_vruntime is not
for normalization of vruntime as before which is required on CFS, so we
will always update_curr() for the latest min_vruntime before using it.
Also, the update_min_vruntime() in dequeue_entity() may also be removed
as the reason, i.e. just do update_min_vruntime() in update_curr() to
simplify. What do you think?
Thanks,
Yiwei Lin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists