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>
 <4368a36c-3df4-1454-1837-473e569b9080@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtCc0pgxnBU4YN5mSxDqfq9k7=qEWE2nDp+MipPNsTwzWw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Message-ID: <5ff5d418-ed84-9747-3868-597223ceb7e2@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jun 2018 11:06:29 +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: <CAKfTPtCc0pgxnBU4YN5mSxDqfq9k7=qEWE2nDp+MipPNsTwzWw@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 06/07/2018 10:44 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 7 June 2018 at 10:29, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>> 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:

[...]

>> 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.
> 
> it's not a problem that the _sum variable are updated in different
> step because there are internal variable
> Only util_avg is used "outside" and the latter is updated after both
> idle and running steps have been applied

You're right here!

>> 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?
> 
> update_irq_load_avg(rq, 0) is called in update_blocked_averages to
> decay smoothly like other blocked signals and replace the need to call
> update_irq_load_avg(rq, 0) for every call to update_rq_clock_task()
> which can be significant

OK.

>> 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.
> 
> good point

[...]