Re: [git] CFS-devel, group scheduler, fixes

From: Tong Li
Date: Mon Sep 24 2007 - 02:21:37 EST

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:

On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 12:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 20:27 -0700, Tong Li wrote:

Could you try this patch to see if it solves the latency problem?

No, but it helps some when running two un-pinned busy loops, one at nice
0, and the other at nice 19. Yesterday I hit latencies of up to 1.2
_seconds_ doing this, and logging sched_debug and /proc/`pidof
Xorg`/sched from SCHED_RR shells.

Looking at a log (snippet attached) from this morning with the last hunk
of your patch still intact, it looks like min_vruntime is being modified
after a task is queued. If you look at the snippet, you'll see the nice
19 bash busy loop on CPU1 with a vruntime of 3010385.345325, and one
second later on CPU1 with it's vruntime at 2814952.425082, but
min_vruntime is 3061874.838356.

I think this could be what was happening: between the two seconds, CPU 0 becomes idle and it pulls the nice 19 task over via pull_task(), which calls set_task_cpu(), which changes the task's vruntime to the current min_vruntime of CPU 0 (in my patch). Then, after set_task_cpu(), CPU 0 calls activate_task(), which calls enqueue_task() and in turn update_curr(). Now, nr_running on CPU 0 is 0, so sync_vruntime() gets called and CPU 0's min_vruntime gets synced to the system max. Thus, the nice 19 task now has a vruntime less than CPU 0's min_vruntime. I think this can be fixed by adding the following code in set_task_cpu() before we adjust p->vruntime:

if (!new_rq->cfs.nr_running)

static void sync_vruntime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
struct rq *rq;
- int cpu;
+ int cpu, wrote = 0;

for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
rq = &per_cpu(runqueues, cpu);
+ if (spin_is_locked(&rq->lock))
+ continue;
+ smp_wmb();
cfs_rq->min_vruntime = max_vruntime(cfs_rq->min_vruntime,
+ wrote++;
- schedstat_inc(cfs_rq, nr_sync_min_vruntime);
+ if (wrote)
+ schedstat_inc(cfs_rq, nr_sync_min_vruntime);

I think this rq->lock check works because it prevents the above scenario (CPU 0 is in pull_task so it must hold the rq lock). But my concern is that it may be too conservative, since sync_vruntime is called by update_curr, which mostly gets called in enqueue_task() and dequeue_task(), both of which are often invoked with the rq lock being held. Thus, if we don't allow sync_vruntime when rq lock is held, the sync will occur much less frequently and thus weaken cross-CPU fairness.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at