Re: Re: [PATCH 03/15] sched/fair: Add lag based placement

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 03:04:47PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> On 10/11/23 9:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra Wrote:

> > > > +		 * we should inflate the lag before placement such that the
> > > > +		 * effective lag after placement comes out right.
> > > > +		 *
> > > > +		 * As such, invert the above relation for vl'_i to get the vl_i
> > > > +		 * we need to use such that the lag after placement is the lag
> > > > +		 * we computed before dequeue.
> > > > +		 *
> > > > +		 *   vl'_i = vl_i - w_i*vl_i / (W + w_i)
> > > > +		 *         = ((W + w_i)*vl_i - w_i*vl_i) / (W + w_i)
> > > > +		 *
> > > > +		 *   (W + w_i)*vl'_i = (W + w_i)*vl_i - w_i*vl_i
> > > > +		 *                   = W*vl_i
> > > > +		 *
> > > > +		 *   vl_i = (W + w_i)*vl'_i / W
> > 
> > And then we obtain the scale factor: (W + w_i)/W, which is >1, right?
> 
> Yeah, I see. But the scale factor is only for the to-be-placed entity.
> Say there is an entity k on the tree:
> 
> 	vl_k	= V - v_k
> 
> adding the to-be-placed entity i affects this by:
> 
> 	define delta := w_i*vl_i / (W + w_i)
> 
> 	vl'_k	= V' - v_k
> 		= V - delta - (V - vl_k)
> 		= vl_k - delta
> 
> hence for any entity on the tree, its lag is offsetted by @delta. So
> I wonder if we should simply do offsetting rather than scaling.

I don't see the point, the result is the same and computing delta seems
numerically less stable.