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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210518125202.78658-1-odin@uged.al> <20210518125202.78658-2-odin@uged.al>
 <CAKfTPtCCZhjOCZR6DMSxb9qffG2KceWONP_MzoY6TpYBmWp+hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFpoUr0f50hKUtWvpTy221xT+pUocY7LXCMCo3cPJupjgMtotg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKfTPtCaZOSEzRXVN9fTR2vTxGiANEARo6iDNMFiQV5=qAA4Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKfTPtAFn3=anfTCxKTDXF0wpttpEiAhksLvcEPdSiYZTj38_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFpoUr1zGNf9vTbWjwsfY9E8YBjyE5xJ0SwzLebPiS7b=xz_Zw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKfTPtDRdFQqphysOL+0g=befwtJky0zixyme_V5eDz71hC5pQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDRdFQqphysOL+0g=befwtJky0zixyme_V5eDz71hC5pQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Odin Ugedal <odin@uged.al>
Date:   Thu, 27 May 2021 11:45:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFpoUr0SOqyGifT5Lpf=t+A+REWdWezR-AY2fM_u1-CCs8KFYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Add tg_load_contrib cfs_rq decay checking
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     Odin Ugedal <odin@uged.al>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

> I finally got it this morning with your script and I confirm that the
> problem of load_sum == 0 but load_avg != 0 comes from
> update_tg_cfs_load(). Then, it seems that we don't call
> update_tg_load_avg for this cfs_rq in __update_blocked_fair() because
> of a recent update while propagating child's load changes. At the end
> we remove the cfs_rq from the list without updating its contribution.
>
> I'm going to prepare a patch to fix this

Yeah, that is another way to look at it. Have not verified, but
wouldn't update_tg_load_avg() in this case
just remove the diff (load_avg - tg_load_avg_contrib)? Wouldn't we
still see some tg_load_avg_contrib
after the cfs_rq is removed from the list then? Eg. in my example
above, the cfs_rq will be removed from
the list while tg_load_avg_contrib=2, or am I missing something? That
was my thought when I looked
at it last week at least..

Thanks
Odin