Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp5185109wrg; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 07:39:06 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuvmo93sxt5Fi6TMY2YSNQOKEopywrnrtwWGrB/er0FBXrXBTRNb88K0P9y9Um7i7hGTGrY X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:24a5:: with SMTP id w34-v6mr20381465pla.221.1520437146390; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 07:39:06 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1520437146; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=s9uypXOCq5vRxNoiDfrqB/4OjGZqY6YAPG8taDUPwSUQ5pWFkO/FUpQ7TLs1NM1Sdm kGiLE0/ExiPpjlh0vvf+YQOPRNeNu0FX3errHaeEI2QNw5cvJTXMuu9Qto8qYUu+Un1z j+743WiL+iZl1Ut3GppcRWP1ARr8DU3WRzNCYMIJf+VTfleUkoTzaNsvliccX1XGSWj0 e3SKCWgnkF1X4L+sBQ30W+d/EJ20rFMJOxzYk4P7o1JVioEIZ6TxkVsHljsFz8UAhu8E RiolAIeBtrmFFSoDOihPQdM7h6BF8wnrJ47FMeqflWgdUB9wPjCTX89o2s4W+y73yIZD ByKA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=AJTPORe0iaR81J95O57AFqW9IXH+YTgLPolJyCdyHLU=; b=qpq8w0amPxvFDlle1wskxihT2UzKh1OB/NVXa7YA1fyjvTVEo1E1uKZ/R7BkeZ1P34 kjV0T2vLtM4C/hfd4oC1ViW2rh8FhlzJZSCLfglHF7ri7MmgPF24ssI9AjS2x7v2zFrU HSKLjVoZFWfCOkw3/8XGgAP+XOymWfaOoFAhO5Y/ltJQToj4lwAe2XuQLTpoUueDmR2H wHuAcWrC95Wx8Ed5IPLc+zp84psr1Mqa12EdNbHxpQO1XeEgFwwTH1ghfy4aRUbLcBBX cK18dauZ5+TVnRCB5sEFfUedoHgyWPM6rMDSzJSdEY3JdyLar2npUzE97nstNY3gvoEH btIw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n59-v6si12986755plb.690.2018.03.07.07.38.51; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 07:39:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933883AbeCGPhi (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 10:37:38 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:53028 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933487AbeCGPhh (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 10:37:37 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C701529; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 07:37:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from e110439-lin (e110439-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.210.68]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B19453F53D; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 07:37:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:37:32 +0000 From: Patrick Bellasi To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , Vincent Guittot , Paul Turner , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , Steve Muckle Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] sched/fair: add util_est on top of PELT Message-ID: <20180307153732.GF2211@e110439-lin> References: <20180222170153.673-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20180222170153.673-2-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20180306185851.GG25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180307093937.GZ25235@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180307093937.GZ25235@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07-Mar 10:39, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 07:58:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 05:01:50PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > +static inline void util_est_enqueue(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, > > > + struct task_struct *p) > > > +{ > > > + unsigned int enqueued; > > > + > > > + if (!sched_feat(UTIL_EST)) > > > + return; > > > + > > > + /* Update root cfs_rq's estimated utilization */ > > > + enqueued = READ_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued); > > > + enqueued += _task_util_est(p); > > > + WRITE_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued, enqueued); > > > +} > > > It appears to me this isn't a stable situation and completely relies on > > the !nr_running case to recalibrate. If we ensure that doesn't happen > > for a significant while the sum can run-away, right? > > > > Should we put a max in enqueue to avoid this? > > Thinking about this a bit more; would it make sense to adjust the > running sum/avg on migration? Something along the lines of: > > util_avg = se->load_avg / (cfs_rq->load_avg + se->load_avg); > > (which disregards cgroups), because that should more or less be the time > it ends up running, given the WFQ rule. I would say it makes sense from a purely mechanism stanpoing, but I'm not entirely convinced it can be useful from a practical stanpoint. First of all, that should be applied only when we migrate to a more saturated CPU. Otherwise, when migrating on an empty CPU we would set util_avg = 100% Secondly, when we migrate to a saturated CPU, this adjustment will contribute to under-estimate the task utilization. Let say the task was running on a completely empty CPU, and thus we was able to ramp up without being preempted. This value represents a good estimation of the (most recent) task CPU demands. Now, if on a following activation, we wakeup the task on an IDLE CPU with a lot of blocked load, then we will scale down its util_avg and assume the task will be smaller. But: a) if the blocked load does not turns into some task waking up again, underestimated the task introduces only further ramp-up latencies b) if the load it due to really active tasks, the task will be preempted and it's utilization smaller... but we are already in a domain where utilization does not tell us anything useful for a task... and thus, why bothering to make it converging sooner? > That way the disparity between tasks migrating into the CPU at u=1 and > them going to sleep at u<1 is much smaller and the above sum doesn't run > away nearly as wild (it still needs some upper bound though). -- #include Patrick Bellasi