Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752963AbaKWAW6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Nov 2014 19:22:58 -0500 Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]:54902 "EHLO mail-pd0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750940AbaKWAW5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Nov 2014 19:22:57 -0500 Message-ID: <547128D8.6040500@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:22:48 +0800 From: Wanpeng Li User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vincent Guittot , Morten Rasmussen CC: "peterz@infradead.org" , "mingo@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "riel@redhat.com" , "efault@gmx.de" , "nicolas.pitre@linaro.org" , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , "daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" , Dietmar Eggemann , "pjt@google.com" , "bsegall@google.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] sched: replace capacity_factor by usage References: <1411488485-10025-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1411488485-10025-6-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20141002165745.GA28662@e103034-lin> <20141003093546.GB28662@e103034-lin> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Vincent, On 10/3/14, 8:50 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 3 October 2014 11:35, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 08:24:23AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>> On 2 October 2014 18:57, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:08:04PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>>>> Below are two examples to illustrate the problem that this patch solves: >>>>> >>>>> 1 - capacity_factor makes the assumption that max capacity of a CPU is >>>>> SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE and the load of a thread is always is >>>>> SCHED_LOAD_SCALE. It compares the output of these figures with the sum >>>>> of nr_running to decide if a group is overloaded or not. >>>>> >>>>> But if the default capacity of a CPU is less than SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE >>>>> (640 as an example), a group of 3 CPUS will have a max capacity_factor >>>>> of 2 ( div_round_closest(3x640/1024) = 2) which means that it will be >>>>> seen as overloaded if we have only one task per CPU. >>>> I did some testing on TC2 which has the setup you describe above on the >>>> A7 cluster when the clock-frequency property is set in DT. The two A15s >>>> have max capacities above 1024. When using sysbench with five threads I >>>> still get three tasks on the two A15s and two tasks on the three A7 >>>> leaving one cpu idle (on average). >>>> >>>> Using cpu utilization (usage) does correctly identify the A15 cluster as >>>> overloaded and it even gets as far as selecting the A15 running two >>>> tasks as the source cpu in load_balance(). However, load_balance() bails >>>> out without pulling the task due to calculate_imbalance() returning a >>>> zero imbalance. calculate_imbalance() bails out just before the hunk you >>>> changed due to comparison of the sched_group avg_loads. sgs->avg_load is >>>> basically the sum of load in the group divided by its capacity. Since >>>> load isn't scaled the avg_load of the overloaded A15 group is slightly >>>> _lower_ than the partially idle A7 group. Hence calculate_imbalance() >>>> bails out, which isn't what we want. >>>> >>>> I think we need to have a closer look at the imbalance calculation code >>>> and any other users of sgs->avg_load to get rid of all code making >>>> assumptions about cpu capacity. >>> We already had this discussion during the review of a previous version >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/3/422 >>> and my answer has not changed; This patch is necessary to solve the 1 >>> task per CPU issue of the HMP system but is not enough. I have a patch >>> for solving the imbalance calculation issue and i have planned to send >>> it once this patch will be in a good shape for being accepted by >>> Peter. >>> >>> I don't want to mix this patch and the next one because there are >>> addressing different problem: this one is how evaluate the capacity of >>> a system and detect when a group is overloaded and the next one will >>> handle the case when the balance of the system can't rely on the >>> average load figures of the group because we have a significant >>> capacity difference between groups. Not that i haven't specifically >>> mentioned HMP for the last patch because SMP system can also take >>> advantage of it >> You do mention 'big' and 'little' cores in your commit message and quote >> example numbers with are identical to the cpu capacities for TC2. That > By last patch, i mean the patch about imbalance that i haven't sent > yet, but it's not related with this patch > >> lead me to believe that this patch would address the issues we see for >> HMP systems. But that is clearly wrong. I would suggest that you drop > This patch addresses one issue: correctly detect how much capacity we > have and correctly detect when the group is overloaded; HMP system What's the meaning of "HMP system"? Regards, Wanpeng Li > clearly falls in this category but not only. > This is the only purpose of this patch and not the "1 task per CPU > issue" that you mentioned. > > The second patch is about correctly balance the tasks on system where > the capacity of a group is significantly less than another group. It > has nothing to do in capacity computation and overload detection but > it will use these corrected/new metrics to make a better choice. > > Then, there is the "1 task per CPU issue on HMP" that you mentioned > and this latter will be solved thanks to these 2 patchsets but this is > not the only/main target of these patchsets so i don't want to reduce > them into: "solve an HMP issue" > >> mentioning big and little cores and stick to only describing cpu >> capacity reductions due to rt tasks and irq to avoid any confusion about >> the purpose of the patch. Maybe explicitly say that non-default cpu >> capacities (capacity_orig) isn't addressed yet. > But they are addressed by this patchset. you just mixed various goal > together (see above) > >> I think the two problems you describe are very much related. This patch >> set is half the solution of the HMP balancing problem. We just need the >> last bit for avg_load and then we can add scale-invariance on top. > i don't see the link between scale invariance and a bad load-balancing > choice. The fact that the current load balancer puts more tasks than > CPUs in a group on HMP system should not influence or break the scale > invariance load tracking. Isn't it ? > > Now, i could send the other patchset but i'm afraid that this will > generate more confusion than help in the process review. > > Regards, > Vincent > >> IMHO, it would be good to have all the bits and pieces for cpu capacity >> scaling and scaling of per-entity load-tracking on the table so we fit >> things together. We only have patches for parts of the solution posted >> so far. >> >> Morten > -- > 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/ -- 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/