Received: by 2002:a25:1506:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp1674391ybv; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:27:22 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw3ubRydUPyKDX5nP6wwHa35swyXVqp+9r4QM1omKbM9UHPspMJMel+/4dmxmEiqcbhk9iz X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:319:: with SMTP id i25mr1223974oie.128.1582277242034; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:27:22 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1582277242; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=YJ+hJsf+RW6ILQ6+lYCMmDB26aOR1QICRlPM1UP+GdvguszNDzASOG4ZJD2W7iI0kz fnTOiZC5DdE3lVqomcwtPs8fwflxJWakX1X3cax5Fu3z+cuxPv1G3RWnC5AH1hUnyS1i 2DwB8B5u+ANJQUZyyJ9mvySV6PVdR2nG1LJUjTMFlY/m+pU6e21Gw5uBorOUMCghQivt 2Cs0oJuRtpI3GCVhWLdjc3v7qHSNmHXdInuRRvAPYqFMhNcbq81r/8txIGQXrCyU7LpC Fk6ylNK4rGluT7IhbzJ2rekaVhfaFBNQT6FjozAEUuE4W7RF3a3P8NF3W0DeDSHxibmd C/UQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=vK9gXkaq53ofJ49UE1L9Wp4Au3Ns1Czs1X1tFZGqyvc=; b=DNWGpSez+3UZnrE9q8NBP/klh4RLqNSexHonhAv2SJhNdAbGHVXTctSU8fcJLEvHtT Er8/KJx2B8ypKGmWzdw1n/RHTALpHrn9aDavLlPfZMLInsdh+ArSWkLgyDMOurOneAVS WvdHKN6vjOUKEvq9Y7fBQFt88KEGQ1v9IMnVS4aiMzmkUvHcf1mRIepeLJauMlgnVzUU KLUqNQNgYOP1+q2qvZ8y1B20ljq4AxtC+hA8WLzAsCgg3YRtfWhCEL2xKWyda/89eJOk B01/RLlh5Oblq/B2wXE8gAp7/ZpertzCVHJfg0I7PlCAcAUw79wNbwBvR4TbU5xSF6M3 aneA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b="SppU/lWh"; 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; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m4si1090690otr.268.2020.02.21.01.27.08; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:27:22 -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; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b="SppU/lWh"; 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; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727137AbgBUJZl (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:25:41 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f196.google.com ([209.85.208.196]:41684 "EHLO mail-lj1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726853AbgBUJZl (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:25:41 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-f196.google.com with SMTP id h23so1450512ljc.8 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:25:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vK9gXkaq53ofJ49UE1L9Wp4Au3Ns1Czs1X1tFZGqyvc=; b=SppU/lWhHyFBcKBlI1jC1V0PLSrtA82cfjWVcef4OOzcR8tLhxYt8Crn3+p0XUY0wG dyYTr9wpMHWVydwbMnlcb6IeYkbkdCCWz+GoO3HarWqohf7yIfpr6T+etohRYX4Te9oI MQL0C7GoCoHhqKCciY/QpAkzJkWsRgXC+Hvn/4+Jsb9toFmnYhdOInR1VdnUuzifFbrw hHk7BnP0XVkN8bfvqnYDKHOQftrJ55yg6JJm/fK9uc+sguZTd++A1SIHBevFBNYffKZy 47kRIVOX2k8Blc0vlyjgH50ZHGfHmSdeeBHsa8lDvic104R6o7P4bJ9V7AwSo9IyeyZT dETw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vK9gXkaq53ofJ49UE1L9Wp4Au3Ns1Czs1X1tFZGqyvc=; b=Atn4R8mq8yHOkXrhvPjBoveGx8Z4sCXP3//QeoEYdhxkvM4P3IKqkdv1pG1oNP/VB2 6AO0JldNyQGi4d/cNkpbC3GlVIjaHH/Zun9YnKS02ypfe3WeUIiqEPhnGP0cPa7ftHT5 mUbUuoDbshCOU4vIh2rrFq2DfI9cQn2d8MMa3wzUxxvAWI8yUsYKKzw8v6WG7oZ3sYCA jLzoSYu8e9rf4gI4nsH5lAeDByfnNtfTYLV8EnqhNConheYgu/Xt4egGzIgbX2WHbXP3 HgKbyG4rfocLGn7dfGJz8odeLbSzYSTItgMX/m8IasUbItq5HhUDGkNsog6lwVBo1QAG CxPA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVFIhRaTbpHoqHjnyDKGF10IfuQAOC9y8TjF2xbzSzDl/GNROxM rX6Z9U0BjvSi6CxTa4aN4QFIiJo/lE8l0MqNnIgF2A== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:909a:: with SMTP id l26mr20625508ljg.209.1582277139149; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:25:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200214152729.6059-5-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20200219125513.8953-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <9fe822fc-c311-2b97-ae14-b9269dd99f1e@arm.com> <20200221090448.GQ3420@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20200221090448.GQ3420@suse.de> From: Vincent Guittot Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:25:27 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] sched/pelt: Add a new runnable average signal To: Mel Gorman Cc: Valentin Schneider , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , linux-kernel , Phil Auld , Parth Shah , Hillf Danton Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 10:04, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 04:11:18PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > On 20/02/2020 14:36, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > I agree that setting by default to SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE is too much > > > for little core. > > > The problem for little core can be fixed by using the cpu capacity instead > > > > > > > So that's indeed better for big.LITTLE & co. Any reason however for not > > aligning with the initialization of util_avg ? > > > > With the default MC imbalance_pct (117), it takes 875 utilization to make > > a single CPU group (with 1024 capacity) overloaded (group_is_overloaded()). > > For a completely idle CPU, that means forking at least 3 tasks (512 + 256 + > > 128 util_avg) > > > > With your change, it only takes 2 tasks. I know I'm being nitpicky here, but > > I feel like those should be aligned, unless we have a proper argument against > > it - in which case this should also appear in the changelog with so far only > > mentions issues with util_avg migration, not the fork time initialization. > > > > So, what is the way forward here? Should this patch be modified now, > a patch be placed on top or go with what we have for the moment that > works for symmetric CPUs and deal with the asym case later? > > I do not have any asym systems at all so I've no means of checking > whether there is a problem or not. I'm going to send a new version at least for patch 4 and 5 using cpu_scale as initial value and fixing update_sg_wakeup_stats() > > -- > Mel Gorman > SUSE Labs