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, 5 Jun 2020 11:45:17 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        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>,
        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>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fs <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default
 boost value
Message-ID: <20200605104517.r65dqhzavnnrnfb2@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20200528132327.GB706460@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200528155800.yjrmx3hj72xreryh@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20200528161112.GI2483@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200529100806.GA3070@suse.de>
 <edd80c0d-b7c8-4314-74da-08590170e6f5@arm.com>
 <87v9k84knx.derkling@matbug.net>
 <20200603101022.GG3070@suse.de>
 <CAKfTPtAvMvPk5Ea2kaxXE8GzQ+Nc_PS+EKB1jAa03iJwQORSqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200603165200.v2ypeagziht7kxdw@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtC6TvUL83VdWuGfbKm0CkXB85YQ5qkagK9aiDB8Hqrn_Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtC6TvUL83VdWuGfbKm0CkXB85YQ5qkagK9aiDB8Hqrn_Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 06/04/20 14:14, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> I have tried your patch and I don't see any difference compared to
> previous tests. Let me give you more details of my setup:
> I create 3 levels of cgroups and usually run the tests in the 4 levels
> (which includes root). The result above are for the root level
> 
> But I see a difference at other levels:
> 
>                            root           level 1       level 2       level 3
> 
> /w patch uclamp disable     50097         46615         43806         41078
> tip uclamp enable           48706(-2.78%) 45583(-2.21%) 42851(-2.18%)
> 40313(-1.86%)
> /w patch uclamp enable      48882(-2.43%) 45774(-1.80%) 43108(-1.59%)
> 40667(-1.00%)
> 
> Whereas tip with uclamp stays around 2% behind tip without uclamp, the
> diff of uclamp with your patch tends to decrease when we increase the
> number of level

Thanks for the extra info. Let me try this.

If you can run perf and verify that you see activate/deactivate_task showing up
as overhead I'd appreciate it. Just to confirm that indeed what we're seeing
here are symptoms of the same problem Mel is seeing.

> Beside this, that's also interesting to notice the ~6% of perf impact
> between each level for the same image

Interesting indeed.

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef