Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:46:10 +0000
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, mingo@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, matt@codeblueprint.co.uk,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, kernellwp@gmail.com, yuyang.du@intel.com,
        umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] sched: fix find_idlest_group for fork
Message-ID: <20161129144609.GB1716@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1480088073-11642-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <1480088073-11642-2-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20161129105758.GA1716@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20161129114243.GF3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161129114243.GF3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1362
Lines: 34

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:42:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:57:59AM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > @@ -5708,13 +5708,6 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
> > >  
> > >  	avg_cost = this_sd->avg_scan_cost;
> > >  
> > > -	/*
> > > -	 * Due to large variance we need a large fuzz factor; hackbench in
> > > -	 * particularly is sensitive here.
> > > -	 */
> > > -	if ((avg_idle / 512) < avg_cost)
> > > -		return -1;
> > > -
> > >  	time = local_clock();
> > >  
> > >  	for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd), target, wrap) {
> > 
> > I don't quite get this fix, but it is very likely because I haven't paid
> > enough attention.
> > 
> > Are you saying that removing the avg_cost check is improving hackbench
> > performance? I thought it was supposed to help hackbench? I'm confused
> > :-(
> 
> IIRC, and my pounding head really doesn't remember much, the comment
> reads like we need the large fudge factor because hackbench. That is,
> hackbench would like this test to go away, but others benchmarks will
> tank.

Thanks, that seems in line with Vincent's reply.

The last bit that isn't clear to me is whether /512 is a 'large' fuzz
factor. I guess it is, as we can have many wake-ups, i.e. many times
avg_cost, over the period where avg_idle is calculated. No?