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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/10] sched/irq: add irq utilization tracking
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
        viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
References: <1527253951-22709-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <1527253951-22709-8-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <72473e6f-8ade-8e26-3282-276fcae4c4c7@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtC8c9sP7TjefZPN2SFuNVGS7Q12WBj3BBYEbJFzxVN-2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <fba5a810-3c3b-dc8b-15fb-8078a591ec2b@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtAMf1FUyY-HtziVzZ8JecnKTrQ1LaF60hg6bd=Nv9pCQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Message-ID: <4368a36c-3df4-1454-1837-473e569b9080@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jun 2018 10:29:15 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtAMf1FUyY-HtziVzZ8JecnKTrQ1LaF60hg6bd=Nv9pCQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 06/06/2018 06:06 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Dietmar,
> 
> Sorry for the late answer
> 
> On 31 May 2018 at 18:54, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 05/30/2018 08:45 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Hi Dietmar,
>>>
>>> On 30 May 2018 at 17:55, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/25/2018 03:12 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> +        */
>>>>> +       ret = ___update_load_sum(rq->clock - running, rq->cpu,
>>>>> &rq->avg_irq,
>>>>> +                               0,
>>>>> +                               0,
>>>>> +                               0);
>>>>> +       ret += ___update_load_sum(rq->clock, rq->cpu, &rq->avg_irq,
>>>>> +                               1,
>>>>> +                               1,
>>>>> +                               1);
>>
>> Can you not change the function parameter list to the usual
>> (u64 now, struct rq *rq, int running)?
>>
>> Something like this (only compile and boot tested):
> 
> To be honest, I prefer to keep the specific sequence above in a
> dedicated function instead of adding it in core code.

No big issue.

> Furthermore,  we end up calling call twice ___update_load_avg instead
> of only once. This will set an intermediate and incorrect value in
> util_avg and this value can be read in the meantime

Can't buy this argument though because this is true with the current 
implementation as well since the 'decay load sum' - 'accrue load sum' 
sequence is not atomic.

What about calling update_irq_load_avg(rq, 0) in update_rq_clock_task() 
if (irq_delta + steal) eq. 0 and sched_feat(NONTASK_CAPACITY) eq. true 
in this #ifdef CONFIG_XXX_TIME_ACCOUNTING block?

Maintaining a irq/steal time signal makes only sense if at least one of 
the CONFIG_XXX_TIME_ACCOUNTING is set and NONTASK_CAPACITY is true. The 
call to update_irq_load_avg() in update_blocked_averages() isn't guarded 
my them.

[...]