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:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:24:13 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, 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>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Vineeth Pillai <vineethrp@gmail.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: forced idle accounting
Message-ID: <YWg9je0wEJsNAd3M@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20211008000825.1364224-1-joshdon@google.com>
 <20211009155435.GW174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CABk29Nu6F4__ryF5p0En--Ze6CCev1Jy81W=LkTYaacf-YLkFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YWV/HNDJaIAOLdrt@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CABk29NucE__6r3P64Ts3Nbf4sUy5Zkw1sbNNnab9KZ=68ydy=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABk29NucE__6r3P64Ts3Nbf4sUy5Zkw1sbNNnab9KZ=68ydy=w@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:45:28PM -0700, Josh Don wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 5:27 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> > > We scale by the number of cpus actually forced idle, since we don't
> > > want to falsely over or under charge forced idle time (defined
> > > strictly as time where we have a runnable task but idle the cpu). The
> > > more important scaling here though is the division over the number of
> > > running entities. This is done so that the aggregate amount of forced
> > > idle over some group of threads makes sense. Ie if we have a cpu with
> > > SMT8, and a group of 7 threads sharing a cookie, we don't want to
> > > accrue 7 units of forced idle time per unit time while the 8th SMT is
> > > forced idle.
> >
> > So why not simply compute the strict per-cpu force-idle time and let
> > userspace sort out the rest?
> 
> Do you mean to compute force idle solely as a per-cpu value? I think
> that would be fine in addition to the per-thread field, but a
> desirable property here is proper attribution to the cause of the
> force idle. That lets system management understand which jobs are the
> most antagonistic from a coresched perspective, and is a signal
> (albeit noisy, due to system state and load balancing decisions) for
> scaling their capacity requirements.

Urgh, reading is hard. I hadn't noticed you did per-task accounting (and
the original changelog doesn't clarify this either).

Also, should all this be undef SCHED_DEBUG ? Or be part of SCHEDSTATS ?