Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDLRWVWhZ3QNEL_fQMwwh_LMZPPFcAEQ=shhRyVdmGQPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 02:29:12 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, zihan zhou <15645113830zzh@...il.com>, bsegall@...gle.com, 
	dietmar.eggemann@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	mgorman@...e.de, mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, vschneid@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] sched: Reduce the default slice to avoid tasks
 getting an extra tick

On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 01:25, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
>
> On 02/24/25 15:15, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 10:13, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 01:29:31AM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > >
> > > > I brought the topic up of these magic values with Peter and Vincent in LPC as
> > > > I think this logic is confusing. I have nothing against your patch, but if the
> > > > maintainers agree I am in favour of removing it completely in favour of setting
> > > > it to a single value that is the same across all systems.
> > >
> > > You're talking about the scaling, right?
> > >
> > > Yeah, it is of limited use. The cap at 8, combined with the fact that
> > > its really hard to find a machine with less than 8 CPUs on, makes the
> > > whole thing mostly useless.
> > >
> > > Back when we did this, we still had dual-core laptops. Now phones have
> > > 8 or more CPUs on.
> > >
> > > So I don't think I mind ripping it out.
> >
> > Beside the question of ripping it out or not. We still have a number
> > of devices with less than 8 cores but they are not targeting phones,
> > laptops or servers ...
>
> I'm not sure if this is in favour or against the rip out, or highlighting a new
> problem. But in case it is against the rip-out, hopefully my answer in [1]

My comment was only about the fact that assuming that systems now have
8 cpus or more so scaling doesn't make any real diff at the end is not
really true.

> highlights why the relationship to CPU number is actually weak and not really
> helping much - I think it is making implicit assumptions about the workloads and
> I don't think this holds anymore. Ignore me otherwise :-)

Then regarding the scaling factor, I don't have a strong opinion but I
would not be so definitive about its uselessness as there are few
things to take into account:
- From a scheduling PoV, the scheduling delay is impacted by largeer
slices on devices with small number of CPUs even for light loaded
cases
- 1000 HZ with 1ms slice will generate 3 times more context switch
than 2.8ms in a steady loaded case and if some people were concerned
but using 1000hz by default, we will not feel better with 1ms slice
- 1ms is not a good value. In fact anything which is a multiple of the
tick is not a good number as the actual time accounted to the task is
usually less than the tick
- And you can always set the scaling to none with tunable_scaling to
get a fixed 0.7ms default slice whatever the number of CPUs

>
> FWIW a raspberry PI can be used as a server, a personal computer, a multimedia
> entertainment system, a dumb sensor recorder/relayer or anything else. I think
> most systems expect to run a variety of workloads and IMHO the fact the system
> is overloaded and we need a reasonable default base_slice to ensure timely
> progress of all running tasks has little relation to NR_CPUs nowadays.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250210230500.53mybtyvzhdagot5@airbuntu/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists