Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:11:16 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        pjt@google.com, bsegall@google.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        len.brown@intel.com, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
        fengguang.wu@intel.com, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] sched: Rewrite runnable load and utilization
 average tracking
Message-ID: <20150619031116.GA3933@intel.com>
References: <1434396367-27979-1-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com>
 <1434396367-27979-3-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com>
 <20150619060038.GA1240@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
 <20150618230554.GA3436@intel.com>
 <20150619075724.GA5331@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150619075724.GA5331@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2735
Lines: 67

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 03:57:24PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > 
> > This rewrite patch does not NEED to aggregate entity's load to cfs_rq,
> > but rather directly update the cfs_rq's load (both runnable and blocked),
> > so there is NO NEED to iterate all of the cfs_rqs.
> 
> Actually, I'm not sure whether we NEED to aggregate or NOT.
> 
> > 
> > So simply updating the top cfs_rq is already equivalent to the stock.
> > 

Ok. By aggregate, the rewrite patch does not need it, because the cfs_rq's
load is calculated at once with all its runnable and blocked tasks counted,
assuming the all children's weights are up-to-date, of course. Please refer
to the changelog to get an idea.

> 
> The stock does have a bottom up update, so simply updating the top
> cfs_rq is not equivalent to it. Simply updateing the top cfs_rq is
> equivalent to the rewrite patch, because the rewrite patch lacks of the
> aggregation.

It is not the rewrite patch "lacks" aggregation, it is needless. The stock
has to do a bottom-up update and aggregate, because 1) it updates the
load at an entity granularity, 2) the blocked load is separate.

> > It is better if we iterate the cfs_rq to update the actually weight
> > (update_cfs_share), because the weight may have already changed, which
> > would in turn change the load. But update_cfs_share is not cheap.
> > 
> > Right?
> 
> You get me right for most part ;-)
> 
> My points are:
> 
> 1. We *may not* need to aggregate entity's load to cfs_rq in
> update_blocked_averages(), simply updating the top cfs_rq may be just
> fine, but I'm not sure, so scheduler experts' insights are needed here.
 
Then I don't need to say anything about this.

> 2. Whether we need to aggregate or not, the update_blocked_averages() in
> the rewrite patch could be improved. If we need to aggregate, we have to
> add something like update_cfs_shares(). If we don't need, we can just
> replace the loop with one update_cfs_rq_load_avg() on root cfs_rq.
 
If update_cfs_shares() is done here, it is good, but probably not necessary
though. However, we do need to update_tg_load_avg() here, because if cfs_rq's
load change, the parent tg's load_avg should change too. I will upload a next
version soon.

In addition, an update to the stress + dbench test case:

I have a Core i7, not a Xeon Nehalem, and I have a patch that may not impact
the result. Then, the dbench runs at very low CPU utilization ~1%. Boqun said
this may result from cgroup control, the dbench I/O is low.

Anyway, I can't reproduce the results, the CPU0's util is 92+%, and other CPUs
have ~100% util.

Thanks,
Yuyang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/