Commit 0c2de3f0 authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra

sched,fair: Alternative sched_slice()

The current sched_slice() seems to have issues; there's two possible
things that could be improved:

 - the 'nr_running' used for __sched_period() is daft when cgroups are
   considered. Using the RQ wide h_nr_running seems like a much more
   consistent number.

 - (esp) cgroups can slice it real fine, which makes for easy
   over-scheduling, ensure min_gran is what the name says.
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Tested-by: default avatarValentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210412102001.611897312@infradead.org
parent d27e9ae2
......@@ -687,7 +687,13 @@ static u64 __sched_period(unsigned long nr_running)
*/
static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
{
u64 slice = __sched_period(cfs_rq->nr_running + !se->on_rq);
unsigned int nr_running = cfs_rq->nr_running;
u64 slice;
if (sched_feat(ALT_PERIOD))
nr_running = rq_of(cfs_rq)->cfs.h_nr_running;
slice = __sched_period(nr_running + !se->on_rq);
for_each_sched_entity(se) {
struct load_weight *load;
......@@ -704,6 +710,10 @@ static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
}
slice = __calc_delta(slice, se->load.weight, load);
}
if (sched_feat(BASE_SLICE))
slice = max(slice, (u64)sysctl_sched_min_granularity);
return slice;
}
......
......@@ -90,3 +90,6 @@ SCHED_FEAT(WA_BIAS, true)
*/
SCHED_FEAT(UTIL_EST, true)
SCHED_FEAT(UTIL_EST_FASTUP, true)
SCHED_FEAT(ALT_PERIOD, true)
SCHED_FEAT(BASE_SLICE, true)
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment