Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m35-v6csp5642243imm; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:57:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdbeS7ScHFrcvYkUDHLVGal2N2MhOCQzy1VAMJ6H2eZiON2oyj47Mu4a6vuIONhw/N4Gi288 X-Received: by 2002:a65:6654:: with SMTP id z20-v6mr3063327pgv.186.1536767868561; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:57:48 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1536767868; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=v/+HdqiMAIlGwYG/lzUHhbLppt7Rwu96O0/hJCSetQi8tIpspK/Q8OWI+hWuc+bDi8 eQwc5YjNJ0brsAhb7tYZB5Sp5Dnfj1PipY1TXX1skFSExDfOAly51y8TIzVOwcrt7hdu FJPok8Lcbe4AT2ywaJhH8l5QFrRhMSB7a2i4Qo6qVIeSWVYo7DQd9kB2pn4VcC/A0U0B MFk1KdNjxnoKIFi/OEFaDW926lWyGZVSGs0Q34yqkC6T9eoEeP24pd4g0QX0batYxLXv FJvd6LJjjzFq/7l5rkpvyxJfsVDgMQlCoISSzYT87sLJf+Gwnyi3p11Iu+hkLdFHQWOw lJXA== 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; bh=fShgbuWRcbEAgCQVRvnE9BV5lTkm4h+6pMlByTqwBj0=; b=zmgRy+20hh6d+TklaeqMaklm/X3O2dB9Qiul6fo+T+eHQwLSrksd/12lgB5nONiuUs K45FExUMVTKyobVypwEbKsaeB4VVVTG/DSALaUcqH5ME4Ka/XN0RKDDjnvvPkibdSTUi nYoLdFg2+NpPKTA2n+Y90b8U55RadVrvEDOT3fMlSyj1V2/p8c6uwLvMw/BQ9y+BmW0p hj1BZ1QxJ6IPEFrnzhGyoWAGvZ69uwIlEefnwIGkgkgjE9mJFCOSZTul9lGo+VLnEG5V +NvPRU1sw7usVrup40VlQarEQxsWMoz8oF8w6IaavdayOs4Eqtqx4gcb6HzaHFn7uEf7 4V4g== 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 p61-v6si1366371plb.55.2018.09.12.08.56.58; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:57:48 -0700 (PDT) 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 S1727839AbeILVBd (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 12 Sep 2018 17:01:33 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:34222 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726821AbeILVBc (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2018 17:01:32 -0400 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 D7D0C7A9; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e110439-lin (e110439-lin.Emea.Arm.com [10.4.12.126]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14A303F5C0; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:56:19 +0100 From: Patrick Bellasi To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , Vincent Guittot , Paul Turner , Quentin Perret , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , Steve Muckle , Suren Baghdasaryan Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/16] sched/core: uclamp: map TASK's clamp values into CPU's clamp groups Message-ID: <20180912155619.GG1413@e110439-lin> References: <20180828135324.21976-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20180828135324.21976-3-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20180912134945.GZ24106@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180912134945.GZ24106@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 12-Sep 15:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:53:10PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > +/** > > + * Utilization's clamp group > > + * > > + * A utilization clamp group maps a "clamp value" (value), i.e. > > + * util_{min,max}, to a "clamp group index" (group_id). > > + */ > > +struct uclamp_se { > > + unsigned int value; > > + unsigned int group_id; > > +}; > > > +/** > > + * uclamp_map: reference counts a utilization "clamp value" > > + * @value: the utilization "clamp value" required > > + * @se_count: the number of scheduling entities requiring the "clamp value" > > + * @se_lock: serialize reference count updates by protecting se_count > > Why do you have a spinlock to serialize a single value? Don't we have > atomics for that? There are some code paths where it's used to protect clamp groups mapping and initialization, e.g. uclamp_group_get() spin_lock() // initialize clamp group (if required) and then... se_count += 1 spin_unlock() Almost all these paths are triggered from user-space and protected by a global uclamp_mutex, but fork/exit paths. To serialize these paths I'm using the spinlock above, does it make sense ? Can we use the global uclamp_mutex on forks/exit too ? One additional observations is that, if in the future we want to add a kernel space API, (e.g. driver asking for a new clamp value), maybe we will need to have a serialized non-sleeping uclamp_group_get() API ? > > + */ > > +struct uclamp_map { > > + int value; > > + int se_count; > > + raw_spinlock_t se_lock; > > +}; > > + > > +/** > > + * uclamp_maps: maps each SEs "clamp value" into a CPUs "clamp group" > > + * > > + * Since only a limited number of different "clamp values" are supported, we > > + * need to map each different clamp value into a "clamp group" (group_id) to > > + * be used by the per-CPU accounting in the fast-path, when tasks are > > + * enqueued and dequeued. > > + * We also support different kind of utilization clamping, min and max > > + * utilization for example, each representing what we call a "clamp index" > > + * (clamp_id). > > + * > > + * A matrix is thus required to map "clamp values" to "clamp groups" > > + * (group_id), for each "clamp index" (clamp_id), where: > > + * - rows are indexed by clamp_id and they collect the clamp groups for a > > + * given clamp index > > + * - columns are indexed by group_id and they collect the clamp values which > > + * maps to that clamp group > > + * > > + * Thus, the column index of a given (clamp_id, value) pair represents the > > + * clamp group (group_id) used by the fast-path's per-CPU accounting. > > + * > > + * NOTE: first clamp group (group_id=0) is reserved for tracking of non > > + * clamped tasks. Thus we allocate one more slot than the value of > > + * CONFIG_UCLAMP_GROUPS_COUNT. > > + * > > + * Here is the map layout and, right below, how entries are accessed by the > > + * following code. > > + * > > + * uclamp_maps is a matrix of > > + * +------- UCLAMP_CNT by CONFIG_UCLAMP_GROUPS_COUNT+1 entries > > + * | | > > + * | /---------------+---------------\ > > + * | +------------+ +------------+ > > + * | / UCLAMP_MIN | value | | value | > > + * | | | se_count |...... | se_count | > > + * | | +------------+ +------------+ > > + * +--+ +------------+ +------------+ > > + * | | value | | value | > > + * \ UCLAMP_MAX | se_count |...... | se_count | > > + * +-----^------+ +----^-------+ > > + * | | > > + * uc_map = + | > > + * &uclamp_maps[clamp_id][0] + > > + * clamp_value = > > + * uc_map[group_id].value > > + */ > > +static struct uclamp_map uclamp_maps[UCLAMP_CNT] > > + [CONFIG_UCLAMP_GROUPS_COUNT + 1] > > + ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; > > + > > I'm still completely confused by all this. > > sizeof(uclamp_map) = 12 > > that array is 2*6=12 of those, so the whole thing is 144 bytes. which is > more than 2 (64 byte) cachelines. This data structure is *not* used in the hot-path, that's why I did not care about fitting it exactly into few cache lines. It's used to map a user-space "clamp value" into a kernel-space "clamp group" when user-space: - changes a task specific clamp value - changes a cgroup clamp value - a task forks/exits I assume we can consider all those as "slow" code paths, is that correct ? At enqueue/dequeue time we use instead struct uclamp_cpu, introduced by the next patch: [PATCH v4 03/16] sched/core: uclamp: add CPU's clamp groups accounting https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180828135324.21976-4-patrick.bellasi@arm.com/ That's where we refcount RUNNABLE tasks and we have to figure out the current clamp value for a CPU. That data structure, with CONFIG_UCLAMP_GROUPS_COUNT=5, is: struct uclamp_cpu { struct uclamp_group group[2][6]; /* 0 96 */ /* --- cacheline 1 boundary (64 bytes) was 32 bytes ago --- */ int value[2]; /* 96 8 */ int flags; /* 104 4 */ /* size: 108, cachelines: 2, members: 3 */ /* last cacheline: 44 bytes */ }; and we fit into 2 cache lines with this data layout: util_min[0..5] | util_max[0..5] | other data > What's the purpose of that cacheline align statement? In uclamp_maps, we still need to scan the array when a clamp value is changed from user-space, i.e. the cases reported above. Thus, that alignment is just to ensure that we minimize the number of cache lines used. Does that make sense ? Maybe that alignment implicitly generated by the compiler ? > Note that without that apparently superfluous lock, it would be 8*12 = > 96 bytes, which is 1.5 lines and would indeed suggest you default to > GROUP_COUNT=7 by default to fill 2 lines. Yes, will check better if we can count on just the uclamp_mutex > Why are the min and max things torn up like that? I'm fairly sure I > asked some of that last time; but the above comments only try to explain > what, not why. We use that organization to speedup scanning for clamp values of the same clamp_id. That's more important in the hot-path than above, where we need to scan struct uclamp_cpu when a new aggregated clamp value has to be computed. This is done in: [PATCH v4 03/16] sched/core: uclamp: add CPU's clamp groups accounting https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180828135324.21976-4-patrick.bellasi@arm.com/ Specifically: dequeue_task() uclamp_cpu_put() uclamp_cpu_put_id(clamp_id) uclamp_cpu_update(clamp_id) // Here we have an array scan by clamp_id With the given data layout I reported above, when we update the min_clamp value (boost) we have all the data required in a single cache line. If that makes sense, I can certainly improve the comment above to justify its layout. Cheers, Patrick -- #include Patrick Bellasi