lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 5/9] sched/fair: Take into account latency priority at wakeup
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 13:53, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 03:12:30PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > index 6c61bde49152..38decae3e156 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -568,6 +568,8 @@ struct sched_entity {
> > /* cached value of my_q->h_nr_running */
> > unsigned long runnable_weight;
> > #endif
> > + /* preemption offset in ns */
> > + long latency_offset;
>
> I wonder about the type here; does it make sense to have it depend on
> the bitness; that is if s32 is big enough on 32bit then surely it is so
> too on 64bit, and if not, then it should be unconditionally s64.

I mainly wanted to stay aligned with the optimal width of the arch but
32bits is enough

>
>
> > +static void set_latency_offset(struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > + long weight = sched_latency_to_weight[p->latency_prio];
> > + s64 offset;
> > +
> > + offset = weight * get_sleep_latency(false);
> > + offset = div_s64(offset, NICE_LATENCY_WEIGHT_MAX);
> > + p->se.latency_offset = (long)offset;
> > +}
>
> > +/*
> > + * latency weight for wakeup preemption
> > + */
> > +const int sched_latency_to_weight[40] = {
> > + /* -20 */ -1024, -973, -922, -870, -819,
> > + /* -15 */ -768, -717, -666, -614, -563,
> > + /* -10 */ -512, -461, -410, -358, -307,
> > + /* -5 */ -256, -205, -154, -102, -51,
> > + /* 0 */ 0, 51, 102, 154, 205,
> > + /* 5 */ 256, 307, 358, 410, 461,
> > + /* 10 */ 512, 563, 614, 666, 717,
> > + /* 15 */ 768, 819, 870, 922, 973,
> > +};
>
> I'm slightly confused by this table, isn't that simply the linear
> function?

Yes, I had in mind to use a nonlinear function at the beginning so the table.

>
> Isn't all that the same as:
>
> se->se.latency_offset = get_sleep_latency * nice / (NICE_LATENCY_WIDTH/2);
>
> ? The reason we have prio_to_weight[] is because it's an exponential,
> which is a bit more cumbersome to calculate, but surely we can do a
> linear function at runtime.
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:30    [W:0.097 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site