Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 03/24] xen: credit1: return the 'time remaining to the limit' as next timeslice.

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/09/16 18:00, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 16:14 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 17/08/16 18:17, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>>
>>> If vcpu x has run for 200us, and sched_ratelimit_us is
>>> 1000us, continue running x _but_ return 1000us-200us as
>>> the next time slice. This way, next scheduling point will
>>> happen in 800us, i.e., exactly at the point when x crosses
>>> the threshold, and can be descheduled (if appropriate).
>>>
>>> Right now (without this patch), we're always returning
>>> sched_ratelimit_us (1000us, in the example above), which
>>> means we're (potentially) allowing x to run more than
>>> it should have been able to (even when considering rate
>>> limiting into account).
>> Part of the reason I went with this in the first place was because I
>> wanted to avoid really short timers.  Part of the reason for the
>> ratelimit was actually to limit the amount of time spent in the
>> scheduler.  Since we expect ratelimit to normally be pretty short,
>> waiting for the whole ratelimit time seemed like a good idea.
>>
> I see what you mean.
> 
> I personally am not a fan of ratelimit, because of how it acts behind
> the algorithm's back and mess with and partly invalidates the
> algorithms own assumptions and properties (not that these assumptions
> and properties are very clear in Credit1, even before ratelimiting,
> but, anyway :-)), and this is an example of that.
> 
> Nevertheless, I see that this patch may, up to some extent, re-
> introduce some of the "small timers" that it was ratelemiting's own
> purpose to mitigate.
> 
> So, I guess, either we make this a three way condition, introducing an
> absolute minimum runtime value, under which we don't ever want to go,
> e.g.:
> 
>  tsclice = MICROSECS(prv->runtime_us) - runtime > CSCHED_MIN_TIMER :
>            MICROSECS(prv->runtime_us) - runtime : CSCHED_MIN_TIMER;
> 
> or we leave things as they are now.
> 
> The MIN_TIMER option would let at least the cases where the vcpu has
> run for a few, but not too much, time to be more precisely scheduled.
> E.g., if ratelimit_us is 1000us, MIN_TIMER is 500us, and the vcpu run
> for 400us, we let it be preempted after 600us more (i.e., 1000us in
> total == ratelimit_us), instead of after 1000us more (i.e., 1400us in
> total).
> 
> I also agree on the fact that most of the times ratelimit_us and
> MIN_TIMER will be close enough (like in the example above) that it
> won't probably matter much... but if someone set ratelimit_us to
> something higher (say, 10ms --we accept values as big as the timeslice,
> which is 30ms b default) it may matter a bit.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> If we decide not to care, and leave things as they are, I'd add a
> comment saying that code is like that on purpose, so we won't trip over
> this again in 1 or 2 years. :-)

Yeah, I think while we're thinking about it we might as well add in the
MIN_TIMER thing you mention above (if you don't mind doing it).

Thanks,
 -George


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel