Re: 4.3 group scheduling regression

[Yuyang Du]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:47:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> Also, should we do the below? At this point se->on_rq is still 0 so
> reweight_entity() will not update (dequeue/enqueue) the accounting, but
> we'll have just accounted the 'old' load.weight.
> 
> Doing it this way around we'll first update the weight and then account
> it, which seems more accurate.
 
I think the original looks ok.

The account_entity_enqueue() adds child entity's load.weight to parent's load:

update_load_add(&cfs_rq->load, se->load.weight)

Then recalculate the shares.

Then reweight_entity() resets the parent entity's load.weight.

> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 700eb548315f..d2efef565aed 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -3009,8 +3009,8 @@ enqueue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
>  	 */
>  	update_curr(cfs_rq);
>  	enqueue_entity_load_avg(cfs_rq, se);
> -	account_entity_enqueue(cfs_rq, se);
>  	update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq);
> +	account_entity_enqueue(cfs_rq, se);
>  
>  	if (flags & ENQUEUE_WAKEUP) {
>  		place_entity(cfs_rq, se, 0);
--
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/