Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 16:11:18 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default
 boost value
Message-ID: <20200529151118.mnysa7jv4l3ntzsk@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20200511154053.7822-1-qais.yousef@arm.com>
 <20200528132327.GB706460@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200528155800.yjrmx3hj72xreryh@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20200528161112.GI2483@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200528165130.m5unoewcncuvxynn@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20200529102125.GB3070@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200529102125.GB3070@suse.de>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 05/29/20 11:21, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 05:51:31PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > Indeed, that one. The fact that regular distros cannot enable this
> > > feature due to performance overhead is unfortunate. It means there is a
> > > lot less potential for this stuff.
> > 
> > I had a humble try to catch the overhead but wasn't successful. The observation
> > wasn't missed by us too then.
> > 
> 
> As with all things, it's perfectly possible I was looking at a workload
> where the cost is more obvious but given that the functions are inlined,
> it's not trivial to spot. I just happened to spot it because I was paying
> close attention to try_to_wake_up() at the time.

Indeed.

> 
> > On my Ubuntu 18.04 machine uclamp is enabled by default by the way. 5.3 kernel
> > though, so uclamp task group stuff not there yet. Should check how their server
> > distro looks like.
> > 
> 
> Elsewhere in the thread, I showed some results based on 5.7 so uclamp
> task group existed but I had it disabled. The uclamp related parts of
> the kconfig were
> 
> # zgrep UCLAMP kconfig-5.7.0-rc7-with-clamp.txt.gz
> CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK=y
> CONFIG_UCLAMP_BUCKETS_COUNT=5
> # CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP is not set

So you never had the TASK_GROUP part enabled when you noticed the regression?
Or is it the other way around, you just disabled CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP to
'fix' it?

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef