Re: [PATCH 00/15] sched: EEVDF and latency-nice and/or slice-attr

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Sat Oct 07 2023 - 18:16:26 EST


On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 02:05:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> t=10 V=4 t=10 V=4
> A |----< A |----<
> B |< >B |<
> >C |----------------< C |----------------<
> |---*-----|---------|---------|---------|---- |---*-----|---------|---------|---------|----
>

>
> t=52 V=18 t=36 V=13
> A |----< A |----<
> >B |< B |<
> C |----------------< >C |----------------<
> |---------|-------*-|---------|---------|---- |---------|--*------|---------|---------|----
>

>
> BAaaBCccccccccBBBAaaBBBAaaBB BBAaaBBBAaaBBBAaaBCccccccccB
>
>
>
> As I wrote before; EVDF has worse lag bounds, but this is not
> insurmountable. The biggest problem that I can see is that of wakeup
> preemption. Currently we allow to preempt when 'current' has reached V
> (RUN_TO_PARITY in pick_eevdf()).
>
> With these rules, when EEVDF schedules C (our large slice task) at t=10
> above, it is only a little behind C and can be reaily preempted after
> about 2 time units.
>
> However, EVDF will delay scheduling C until much later, see how A and B
> walk far ahead of V until t=36. Only when will we pick C. But this means
> that we're firmly stuck with C for at least 11 time units. A newly
> placed task will be around V and will have no chance to preempt.

Playing around with it a little:

EEVDF EVDF

slice 30000000 slice 30000000
# Min Latencies: 00014 # Min Latencies: 00048
# Avg Latencies: 00692 # Avg Latencies: 188239
# Max Latencies: 94633 # Max Latencies: 961241

slice 3000000 slice 3000000
# Min Latencies: 00054 # Min Latencies: 00055
# Avg Latencies: 00522 # Avg Latencies: 00673
# Max Latencies: 41475 # Max Latencies: 13297

slice 300000 slice 300000
# Min Latencies: 00018 # Min Latencies: 00024
# Avg Latencies: 00344 # Avg Latencies: 00056
# Max Latencies: 20061 # Max Latencies: 00860


So while it improves the short slices, it completely blows up the large
slices -- utterly slaughters the large slices in fact.

And all the many variants of BIAS_ELIGIBLE that I've tried so far only
manage to murder the high end while simultaneously not actually helping
the low end -- so that's a complete write off.


By far the sanest option so far is PLACE_SLEEPER -- and that is very
much not a nice option either :-(