Re: [PATCH] sched: fix lose fair sleeper bonus in switch_to_fair()

[Wanpeng Li]

On 9/8/15 2:14 PM, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 01:38:08PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > On 9/8/15 1:28 PM, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 11:46:01AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > > > On 9/7/15 10:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > Please always Cc at least the person who wrote the lines you modify.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:45:20PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > > > > > The sleeper task will be normalized when moved from fair_sched_class, in
> > > > > > order that vruntime will be adjusted either the task is running or sleeping
> > > > > > when moved back. The nomalization in switch_to_fair for sleep task will
> > > > > > result in lose fair sleeper bonus in place_entity() once the vruntime -
> > > > > > cfs_rq->min_vruntime is big when moved from fair_sched_class.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch fix it by adjusting vruntime just during migrating as original
> > > > > > codes since the vruntime of the task has usually NOT been normalized in
> > > > > > this case.
> > > > > Sorry, I cannot follow that at all. Maybe its me being sleep deprived,
> > > > > but could you try that again?
> > > > When changing away from the fair class while sleeping, relative
> > > > vruntime is calculated to handle the case sleep when moved from
> > > > fair_sched_class and running when moved to fair_sched_class. The
> > > i don't think relative vruntime is calculated to handle the special case
> > > you mentioned. i think the calculation is necessary for all cases detaching
> > Please refer why the relative vruntime caculation is introduced to
> > switched_from_fair(): https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/17/129
> hello,
>
> it is just a bug caused by not calculating a relative vruntime when
> detached a task from cfs_rq, which is necessary though.

Refer to Peterz's comments:

| There is also a case where it was moved from fair_sched_class when it
| was in a blocked state and moved back while it is running.

> > > a task from a cfs_rq.
> > >
> > > > absolute vruntime will be calculated in enqueue_entity() either the
> > > > task is running or sleeping when moved back. The fair sleeper bonus
> > > i think absolute vruntime is calculated in enqueue_entuty() only when the
> > > task is on rq. therefore in the case that the task is not on rq,
> > > switched_to_fair() has to calculate the absolute vruntime instread.
> > Absolute vruntime is caculated in place_entity() which is called by
> > enqueue_entity() for DEQUEUE_SLEEP task.
> as you may know, place_entity() is not for calculating an absolute
> vruntime though.. anyway the important thing here is that, when a
> sleeping task is moved back to fair class, enqueue_entity() for
> DEQUEUE_SLEEP task won't be called.

The enqueue_entity() for DEQUEUE_SLEEP task will be called when the task 
is wake up.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/