Re: Network slowdown due to CFS

[Jarek Poplawski]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 04:10:00PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Friday 28 September 2007 00:42, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:31:23PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@xxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > OK, but let's forget about fixing iperf. Probably I got this wrong,
> > > > but I've thought this "bad" iperf patch was tested on a few nixes and
> > > > linux was the most different one. The main point is: even if there is
> > > > no standard here, it should be a common interest to try to not differ
> > > > too much at least. So, it's not about exactness, but 50% (63 -> 95)
> > > > change in linux own 'definition' after upgrading seems to be a lot.
> > > > So, IMHO, maybe some 'compatibility' test could be prepared to compare
> > > > a few different ideas on this yield and some average value could be a
> > > > kind of at least linux' own standard, which should be emulated within
> > > > some limits by next kernels?
> > >
> > > you repeat your point of "emulating yield", and i can only repeat my
> > > point that you should please read this:
> > >
> > >     http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/19/357
> > >
> > > because, once you read that, i think you'll agree with me that what you
> > > say is simply not possible in a sane way at this stage. We went through
> > > a number of yield implementations already and each will change behavior
> > > for _some_ category of apps. So right now we offer two implementations,
> > > and the default was chosen empirically to minimize the amount of
> > > complaints. (but it's not possible to eliminate them altogether, for the
> > > reasons outlined above - hence the switch.)
> >
> > Sorry, but I think you got me wrong: I didn't mean emulation of any
> > implementation, but probably the some thing you write above: emulation
> > of time/performance. In my opinion this should be done experimentally
> > too, but with something more objective and constant than current
> > "complaints counter". And the first thing could be a try to set some
> > kind of linux internal "standard of yeld" for the future by averaging
> > a few most popular systems in a test doing things like this iperf or
> > preferably more.
> 
> By definition, yield is essentially undefined as to the behaviour between
> SCHED_OTHER tasks at the same priority level (ie. all of them), because
> SCHED_OTHER scheduling behaviour itself is undefined.
> 
> It's never going to do exactly what everybody wants, except those using
> it for legitimate reasons in realtime applications.
> 

That's why I've used words like: "not differ too much" and "within
some limits" above. So, it's only about being reasonable, compared
to our previous versions, and to others, if possible.

This should be not impossible to additionally control (delay or
accelerate) yielding tasks wrt. current load/weight/number_of_tasks
etc., if we know (after testing) eg. average expedition time of such
tasks with various schedulers. Of course, such tests and controlling
paremeters can change for some time until the problem is explored
enough, and still no aim for exactness or to please everybody.

BTW, it looks like risky to criticise sched_yield too much: some
people can misinterpret such discussions and stop using this at
all, even where it's right.

Regards,
Jarek P.
-
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/