Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: introduce core_vruntime and core_min_vruntime

[cruzzhao]

在 2023/11/15 下午11:22, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 09:42:13PM +0800, cruzzhao wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2023/11/15 下午8:20, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:33:40PM +0800, Cruz Zhao wrote:
>>>> To compare the priority of sched_entity from different cpus of a core,
>>>> we introduce core_vruntime to struct sched_entity and core_min_vruntime
>>>> to struct cfs_rq.
>>>>
>>>> cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime records the min vruntime of the cfs_rqs
>>>> of the same task_group among the core, and se->core_vruntime is the
>>>> vruntime relative to se->cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime.
>>>
>>> But that makes absolutely no sense. vruntime of different RQs can
>>> advance at wildly different rates. Not to mention there's this random
>>> offset between them.
>>>
>>> No, this cannot be.
>>
>> Force idle vruntime snapshot does the same thing, comparing
>> sea->vruntime - cfs_rqa->min_vruntime_fi with seb->vruntime -
>> cfs_rqb->min_vruntime_fi, while sea and seb may have wildly different rates.
> 
> But that subtracts a from a and b from b, it doesn't mix a and b.
> 
> Note that se->vruntime - cfs_rq->min_vruntime is a very poor
> approximation of lag. We have actual lag now.
> 
> Note that:
> 
>   (sea - seb) + (min_fib - min_fia) =
>   (sea - min_fia) + (min_fib - seb) =
>   (sea - min_fia) - (seb - min_fib) =
>   'lag'a - 'lag'b
> 
> It doesn't mix absolute a and b terms anywhere.
> 
>> Actually, cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime does the same thing as
>> cfs_rq->min_vruntime_fi, providing a baseline, but
>> cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime is more accurate.
> 
> min(cfs_rqa, cfs_rqb) is nonsense. And I can't see how min_vruntime_fi
> would do anything like that.
> 
>> I've tried to implement a fair enough mechanism of core_vruntime, but
>> it's too complex because of the weight, and it costs a lot. So this is a
>> compromise solution.
> 
> 'this' is complete nonsense and not motivated by any math.
> 
>> BTW, is there any other solutions to solve this problem?
> 
> Well, this is where it all started:
> 
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200506143506.GH5298%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> 
> The above lag thing is detailed in a follow up:
> 
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200515103844.GG2978%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

Many thanks, I'll study the discussion about this.

> 
> Anyway, I think the first of those links has the start of the
> multi-queue formalism, see the S_k+l bits. Work that out and see where
> it ends.
> 
> I did go a bit further, but I've forgotten everything since, it's been
> years.
> 
> Anyway, nothing like this goes in without a fairly solid bit of math in
> the changelog to justify it.
> 
> Also, I think Joel complained about something like this at some point,
> and he wanted to update the core tree more often, because IIRc his
> observation was that things got stale or something.

Many thanks for reviewing. I'll think about this more comprehensively.

Best,
Cruz Zhao