On 7/18/19 10:52 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 04:27:19PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/18/19 3:07 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:33:02PM -0400, Julien Desfossez wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> With the below patch on top of v3 that makes use of util_avg to decide
>>> which task win, I can do all 8 steps and the final scores of the 2
>>> workloads are: 1796191 and 2199586. The score number are not close,
>>> suggesting some unfairness, but I can finish the test now...
>>
>> Aaron,
>>
>> Do you still see high variance in terms of workload throughput that
>> was a problem with the previous version?
>
> Any suggestion how to measure this?
> It's not clear how Aubrey did his test, will need to take a look at
> sysbench.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
>>> +{
>>> + struct sched_entity *sea = &a->se;
>>> + struct sched_entity *seb = &b->se;
>>> + bool samecore = task_cpu(a) == task_cpu(b);
>>
>>
>> Probably "samecpu" instead of "samecore" will be more accurate.
>> I think task_cpu(a) and task_cpu(b)
>> can be different, but still belong to the same cpu core.
>
> Right, definitely, guess I'm brain damaged.
>
>>
>>> + struct task_struct *p;
>>> + s64 delta;
>>> +
>>> + if (samecore) {
>>> + /* vruntime is per cfs_rq */
>>> + while (!is_same_group(sea, seb)) {
>>> + int sea_depth = sea->depth;
>>> + int seb_depth = seb->depth;
>>> +
>>> + if (sea_depth >= seb_depth)
>>
>> Should this be strictly ">" instead of ">=" ?
>
> Same depth doesn't necessarily mean same group while the purpose here is
> to make sure they are in the same cfs_rq. When they are of the same
> depth but in different cfs_rqs, we will continue to go up till we reach
> rq->cfs.
Ah, I see what you are doing now. Thanks for the clarification.
Tim
