Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3

[Aubrey Li]

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:45 PM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:53:21PM +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 2:09 PM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2019/5/31 13:12, Aubrey Li wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:01 AM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> This feels like "date" failed to schedule on some CPU
> > > >> on time.
> > > >>
> > > >> My first reaction is: when shell wakes up from sleep, it will
> > > >> fork date. If the script is untagged and those workloads are
> > > >> tagged and all available cores are already running workload
> > > >> threads, the forked date can lose to the running workload
> > > >> threads due to __prio_less() can't properly do vruntime comparison
> > > >> for tasks on different CPUs. So those idle siblings can't run
> > > >> date and are idled instead. See my previous post on this:
> > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190429033620.GA128241@aaronlu/
> > > >> (Now that I re-read my post, I see that I didn't make it clear
> > > >> that se_bash and se_hog are assigned different tags(e.g. hog is
> > > >> tagged and bash is untagged).
> > > >
> > > > Yes, script is untagged. This looks like exactly the problem in you
> > > > previous post. I didn't follow that, does that discussion lead to a solution?
> > >
> > > No immediate solution yet.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Siblings being forced idle is expected due to the nature of core
> > > >> scheduling, but when two tasks belonging to two siblings are
> > > >> fighting for schedule, we should let the higher priority one win.
> > > >>
> > > >> It used to work on v2 is probably due to we mistakenly
> > > >> allow different tagged tasks to schedule on the same core at
> > > >> the same time, but that is fixed in v3.
> > > >
> > > > I have 64 threads running on a 104-CPU server, that is, when the
> > >
> > > 104-CPU means 52 cores I guess.
> > > 64 threads may(should?) spread on all the 52 cores and that is enough
> > > to make 'date' suffer.
> >
> > 64 threads should spread onto all the 52 cores, but why they can get
> > scheduled while untagged "date" can not? Is it because in the current
>
> If 'date' didn't get scheduled, there will be no output at all unless
> all those workload threads finished :-)

Certainly I meant untagged "date" can not be scheduled on time, :)

>
> I guess the workload you used is not entirely CPU intensive, or 'date'
> can be totally blocked due to START_DEBIT. But note that START_DEBIT
> isn't the problem here, cross CPU vruntime comparison is.
>
> > implementation the task with cookie always has higher priority than the
> > task without a cookie?
>
> No.

I checked the benchmark log manually, it looks like the data of two benchmarks
with cookies are acceptable, but ones without cookies are really bad.