Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Nov 2023 18:25:20 +0000 | From | Joel Fernandes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] sched/deadline: Deferrable dl server |
| |
On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 09:01:17AM +0100, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote: > On 11/8/23 04:20, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 1:50 PM Daniel Bristot de Oliveira > > <bristot@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > >>> The code is not doing what I intended because I thought it was doing overload > >>> control on the replenishment, but it is not (my bad). > >>> > >> > >> I am still testing but... it is missing something like this (famous last words). > >> > >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c > >> index 1092ca8892e0..6e2d21c47a04 100644 > >> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c > >> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c > >> @@ -842,6 +842,8 @@ static inline void setup_new_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se) > >> * runtime, or it just underestimated it during sched_setattr(). > >> */ > >> static int start_dl_timer(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se); > >> +static bool dl_entity_overflow(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, u64 t); > >> + > >> static void replenish_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se) > >> { > >> struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se); > >> @@ -852,9 +854,18 @@ static void replenish_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se) > >> /* > >> * This could be the case for a !-dl task that is boosted. > >> * Just go with full inherited parameters. > >> + * > >> + * Or, it could be the case of a zerolax reservation that > >> + * was not able to consume its runtime in background and > >> + * reached this point with current u > U. > >> + * > >> + * In both cases, set a new period. > >> */ > >> - if (dl_se->dl_deadline == 0) > >> - replenish_dl_new_period(dl_se, rq); > >> + if (dl_se->dl_deadline == 0 || > >> + (dl_se->dl_zerolax_armed && dl_entity_overflow(dl_se, rq_clock(rq)))) { > >> + dl_se->deadline = rq_clock(rq) + pi_of(dl_se)->dl_deadline; > >> + dl_se->runtime = pi_of(dl_se)->dl_runtime; > >> + } > >> > >> if (dl_se->dl_yielded && dl_se->runtime > 0) > >> dl_se->runtime = 0; > > > > I was wondering does this mean GRUB needs to be enabled? Otherwise I > > can see that "runtime / (deadline - t) > dl_runtime / dl_deadline" > > will be true almost all the time due to the constraint of executing at > > the 0-lax time. > > No grub needed. It will only happen if the fair server did not have any chance to run. > > If it happens, it is not a problem, see that timeline I replied in the previous > email.
Ah you're right, I mistakenly read your diff assuming you were calling replenish_dl_new_period() on dl_entity_overflow(). Indeed the diff is needed (I was actually wondering about why that was not done in my initial review as well -- so its good we found it in discussion).
> We do not want a zerolax scheduler, because it breaks everything else. It is > a deferred EDF, that looking from wall clock, composes an "zerolaxish" timeline.
Indeed. I was not intending that we do zerolax scheduler, I was merely misreading the diff assuming you were throttling the DL-server once again at the zerolax time.
thanks,
- Joel
| |