Message-ID: <518749A9.8000605@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 14:11:53 +0800
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
CC: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@alien8.de, pjt@google.com,
        namhyung@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mgorman@suse.de,
        riel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] sched: consider runnable load average in effective_load
References: <1367804711-30308-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1367804711-30308-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <518724D1.9040006@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51874229.8050202@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <51874229.8050202@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2446
Lines: 75

On 05/06/2013 01:39 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 11:34 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>> @@ -3045,7 +3045,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg, int cpu, long wl, long wg)
>>>>  		/*
>>>>  		 * w = rw_i + @wl
>>>>  		 */
>>>> -		w = se->my_q->load.weight + wl;
>>>> +		w = se->my_q->tg_load_contrib + wl;
>> I've tested the patch set, seems like the last patch caused big
>> regression on pgbench:
>>
>> 			base	patch 1~6	patch 1~7
>> | db_size | clients |  tps  |   |  tps  |	|  tps  |
>> +---------+---------+-------+	+-------+	+-------+
>> | 22 MB   |      32 | 43420 |	| 53387 |	| 41625 |
>>
>> I guess some magic thing happened in effective_load() while calculating
>> group decay combined with load decay, what's your opinion?
> 
> 
> thanks for testing, Michael!
> 
> Maybe 2 fix worth to try.
> 
> 1, change back the tg_weight in calc_tg_weight() to use tg_load_contrib not direct load.
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 6f4f14b..c770f8d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -1037,8 +1037,8 @@ static inline long calc_tg_weight(struct task_group *tg, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>  	 * update_cfs_rq_load_contribution().
>  	 */
>  	tg_weight = atomic64_read(&tg->load_avg);
> -	tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
> -	tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight;
> +	//tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
> +	//tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight;
> 
>  	return tg_weight;
>  }
> 
> 2, another try is follow the current calc_tg_weight, so remove the follow change.
> 
>>>> @@ -3045,7 +3045,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg, int cpu, long wl, long wg)
>>>>  		/*
>>>>  		 * w = rw_i + @wl
>>>>  		 */
>>>> -		w = se->my_q->load.weight + wl;
>>>> +		w = se->my_q->tg_load_contrib + wl;
> 
> Would you like to try them?

Sure, I will take a try on both :)

But actually I'm wondering whether it is necessary to change
effective_load()?

It is only severed for wake-affine and the whole stuff is still in the
dark, if patch 1~6 already show good results, why don't we leave it there?

So how about the situation on your box without the last patch? is the
benefit still there?

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/