Re: [PATCH 08/17] sched/fair: Implement an EEVDF like policy

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 06:26:51PM -0700, Josh Don wrote:

> > @@ -5088,19 +5307,20 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, st
> >  static void
> >  check_preempt_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
> >  {
> > -       unsigned long ideal_runtime, delta_exec;
> > +       unsigned long delta_exec;
> >         struct sched_entity *se;
> >         s64 delta;
> >
> > -       /*
> > -        * When many tasks blow up the sched_period; it is possible that
> > -        * sched_slice() reports unusually large results (when many tasks are
> > -        * very light for example). Therefore impose a maximum.
> > -        */
> > -       ideal_runtime = min_t(u64, sched_slice(cfs_rq, curr), sysctl_sched_latency);
> > +       if (sched_feat(EEVDF)) {
> > +               if (pick_eevdf(cfs_rq) != curr)
> > +                       goto preempt;
> 
> This could shortcircuit the loop in pick_eevdf once we find a best
> that has less vruntime and sooner deadline than curr, since we know
> we'll never pick curr in that case. Might help performance when we
> have a large tree for this cfs_rq.

Yeah, one of the things I did consider was having this set cfs_rq->next
such that the reschedule pick doesn't have to do the pick again. But I
figured keep things simple for now.