Re: [PATCH 06/10] sched/fair: Add avg_vruntime

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:58:13PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> On 2023-03-06 at 14:25:27 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> [...]
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Compute virtual time from the per-task service numbers:
> > + *
> > + * Fair schedulers conserve lag: \Sum lag_i = 0
> > + *
> > + * lag_i = S - s_i = w_i * (V - v_i)
> > + *
> The definination of above lag_i seems to be inconsistent with the defininatin
> of se->lag in PATCH 8. Maybe rename lag_i to something other to avoid confusion?

Yeah, I ran into that the other day, I think I'll introduce vlag_i = V - v_i
or so.

> > + * \Sum lag_i = 0 -> \Sum w_i * (V - v_i) = V * \Sum w_i - \Sum w_i * v_i = 0
> > + *
> > + * From which we solve V:
> > + *
> > + *     \Sum v_i * w_i
> > + * V = --------------
> > + *        \Sum w_i
> > + *
> > + * However, since v_i is u64, and the multiplcation could easily overflow
> > + * transform it into a relative form that uses smaller quantities:
> > + *
> > + * Substitute: v_i == (v_i - v) + v
> > + *
> > + *     \Sum ((v_i - v) + v) * w_i   \Sum (v_i - v) * w_i
> > + * V = -------------------------- = -------------------- + v
> > + *              \Sum w_i                   \Sum w_i
> > + *
> > + *

> Not sure if I understand it correctly, does it mean  (v_i - v) * w_i will not
> overflow? If the weight of task is 15 (nice 19), then if v_i - v > (S64_MAX / 15)
> it gets overflow. Is it possible that v_i is much larger than cfs_rq->min_vruntime
> in this case?

Or worse, SCHED_IDLE, where weight is 2 (IIRC) or cgroups, then vtime
advances at 512 times realtime. Now, the tick puts a limit on how long
we'll overshoot these super low weight entities, for HZ=1000 we still
only get 0.5s of vtime for weight=2.

That would be only 30 bits used, except we use double FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT
on 64bit, so we'll end up at 40-ish.

That should give us enough room to carry an average of deltas around
min_vruntime.

But yes, I've seen this go sideways and I need to stare a bit more at
this. One of the things I've considered is changing the min_vruntime
update rules to instead move to avg_vruntime() to minimize the deltas.
But I've not yet actually written that code.