Re: [RFC v4 0/6] CPU reclaiming for SCHED_DEADLINE

[Juri Lelli]

On 11/01/17 13:39, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi Juri,
> (I reply from my new email address)
> 
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:19:51 +0000
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
> > > > For example, with my taskset, with a hypothetical perfect balance
> > > > of the whole runqueue, one possible scenario is:
> > > >
> > > >    CPU    0    1     2     3
> > > > # TASKS   3    3     3     2
> > > >
> > > > In this case, CPUs 0 1 2 are with 100% of local utilization.
> > > > Thus, the current task on these CPUs will have their runtime
> > > > decreased by GRUB. Meanwhile, the luck tasks in the CPU 3 would
> > > > use an additional time that they "globally" do not have - because
> > > > the system, globally, has a load higher than the 66.6...% of the
> > > > local runqueue. Actually, part of the time decreased from tasks
> > > > on [0-2] are being used by the tasks on 3, until the next
> > > > migration of any task, which will change the luck tasks... but
> > > > without any guaranty that all tasks will be the luck one on every
> > > > activation, causing the problem.
> > > >
> > > > Does it make sense?  
> > > 
> > > Yes; but my impression is that gEDF will migrate tasks so that the
> > > distribution of the reclaimed CPU bandwidth is almost uniform...
> > > Instead, you saw huge differences in the utilisations (and I do not
> > > think that "compressing" the utilisations from 100% to 95% can
> > > decrease the utilisation of a task from 33% to 25% / 26%... :)
> > >  
> > 
> > I tried to replicate Daniel's experiment, but I don't see such a
> > skewed allocation. They get a reasonably uniform bandwidth and the
> > trace looks fairly good as well (all processes get to run on the
> > different processors at some time).
> 
> With some effort, I replicated the issue noticed by Daniel... I think
> it also depends on the CPU speed (and on good or bad luck :), but the
> "unfair" CPU allocation can actually happen.

Yeah, actual allocation in general varies. I guess the question is: do
we care? We currently don't load balance considering utilizations, only
dynamic deadlines matter.

> I am working on a fix (based on the m-grub modifications proposed at
> last April's SAC - in my original patchset, I over-simplified the
> algorithm).
> 

OK, will have a look to next version.

> 
> > > I suspect there is something more going on here (might be some bug
> > > in one of my patches). I am trying to better understand what
> > > happened. 
> > 
> > However, playing with this a bit further, I found out one thing that
> > looks counter-intuitive (at least to me :).
> > 
> > Simplifying Daniel's example, let's say that we have one 10/30 task
> > running on a CPU with a 500/1000 global limit. Applying grub_reclaim()
> > formula we have:
> > 
> >  delta_exec = delta * (0.5 + 0.333) = delta * 0.833
> > 
> > Which in practice means that 1ms of real delta (at 1000HZ) corresponds
> > to 0.833ms of virtual delta. Considering this, a 10ms (over 30ms)
> > reservation gets "extended" to ~12ms (over 30ms), that is to say the
> > task consumes 0.4 of the CPU's bandwidth. top seems to back what I'm
> > saying, but am I still talking nonsense? :)
> 
> You are right; my "Do not reclaim the whole CPU bandwidth" patch is an
> approximation... I hoped that this approximation could be more precise
> than what it really is.
> I used the "Uact + unreclaimable utilization" equation to avoid
> divisions in grub_reclaim(), but the equation should really be "Uact /
> reclaimable utilization"... So, in your example it is
> 	delta * 0.3333 / 0.5 = delta * 0.6666
> that results in 15ms over 30ms, as expected.
> 
> I'll fix that patch for the next submission.
> 

Right, OK.

> > I was expecting that the task could consume 0.5 worth of bandwidth
> > with the given global limit. Is the current behaviour intended?
> > 
> > If we want to change this behaviour maybe something like the following
> > might work?
> > 
> >  delta_exec = (delta * to_ratio((1ULL << 20) - rq->dl.non_deadline_bw,
> >                                 rq->dl.running_bw)) >> 20
> My current patch does
> 	(delta * rq->dl.running_bw * rq->dl.deadline_bw_inv) >> 20 >> 8;
> where rq->dl.deadline_bw_inv has been set to
> 	to_ratio(global_rt_runtime(), global_rt_period()) >> 12;
> 	
> This seems to work fine, and should introduce less overhead than
> to_ratio().
> 

Sure, we don't want to do divisions if we can. Why the intermediate
right shifts, though?

Thanks,

- Juri