Re: [PATCH v4] sched: Update runnable propagation rule

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:21:52PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Unlike running, the runnable part can't be directly propagated through
> > the hierarchy when we migrate a task. The main reason is that runnable
> > time can be shared with other sched_entities that stay on the rq and
> > this runnable time will also remain on prev cfs_rq and must not be
> > removed.
> > 
> > Instead, we can estimate what should be the new runnable of the prev
> > cfs_rq and check that this estimation stay in a possible range. The
> > prop_runnable_sum is a good estimation when adding runnable_sum but
> > fails most often when we remove it. Instead, we could use the formula
> > below instead:
> > 
> >   gcfs_rq's runnable_sum = gcfs_rq->avg.load_sum / gcfs_rq->load.weight
> > 
> > which assumes that tasks are equally runnable which is not true but
> > easy to compute.
> > 
> > Beside these estimates, we have several simple rules that help us to filter
> > out wrong ones:
> > 
> >  - ge->avg.runnable_sum <= than LOAD_AVG_MAX
> >  - ge->avg.runnable_sum >= ge->avg.running_sum (ge->avg.util_sum << LOAD_AVG_MAX)
> >  - ge->avg.runnable_sum can't increase when we detach a task
> > 
> > Cc: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171019150442.GA25025@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Ingo, can you stuff this in sched/urgent ?

Yeah, I've queued up in tip:sched/urgent.

Thanks,

	Ingo