MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1640262603-19339-1-git-send-email-CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com>
 <1640262603-19339-2-git-send-email-CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com>
 <CABk29NvPJ3S1xq5xm+52OoUGDyuMSxGOLJbopPa3+-QmLnVYeQ@mail.gmail.com> <b02204ea-0683-2879-5843-4cfb31d44d27@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <b02204ea-0683-2879-5843-4cfb31d44d27@linux.alibaba.com>
From:   Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jan 2022 12:47:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CABk29Nts4sysjmRcnZ_DWmMzhUrianp55Zgf-Nod8m+aUKiWeA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/core: Cookied forceidle accounting per cpu
To:     cruzzhao <cruzzhao@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:33 AM cruzzhao <cruzzhao@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
> Firstly, attributing forced idle time to the specific cpus it happens on
> can help us measure the effect of steal_cookie_task(). We found out that
> steal_cookie_task() conflicts with load balance sometimes, for example,
> a cookie'd task is stolen by steal_cookie_task(), but it'll be migrated
> to another core by load balance soon.

I don't see how this is very helpful for steal_cookie_task(), since it
isn't a targeted metric for that specific case. If you were interested
in that specifically, I'd think you'd want to look at more direct
metrics, such as task migration counts, or adding some
accounting/histogram for the time between steal and load balance away.

> Secondly, a more convenient way of
> summing forced idle instead of iterating cookie'd task is indeed what we
> need. In the multi-rent scenario, it'll be complex to maintain the list
> of cookie'd task and it'll cost a lot to iterate it.

That motivation makes more sense to me. Have you considered
accumulating this at the cgroup level (ie. attributing it as another
type of usage)?