Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 18:50:19 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@chromium.org>
Cc:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>, mingo@kernel.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, qyousef@layalina.io,
        chris.hyser@oracle.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net, pjt@google.com,
        pavel@ucw.cz, qperret@google.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
        joshdon@google.com, timj@gnu.org, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
        yu.c.chen@intel.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, efault@gmx.de,
        tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] sched: EEVDF and latency-nice and/or slice-attr
Message-ID: <20231016165019.GG33217@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230531115839.089944915@infradead.org>
 <dlbtvvm5cewqzh5bcpl4cqhcwxmnnjb6pdle5jzywiiznlactd@cmhnpim42m3p>
 <20230906131356.GG38741@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CA+q576MS0-MV1Oy-eecvmYpvNT3tqxD8syzrpxQ-Zk310hvRbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231002184136.GA1539@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20231005120557.GA743@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20231007220400.GA5581@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CA+q576Mov1jpdfZhPBoy_hiVh3xSWuJjXdP3nS4zfpqfOXtq7Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+q576Mov1jpdfZhPBoy_hiVh3xSWuJjXdP3nS4zfpqfOXtq7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


Sorry, I seem to have forgotten to reply to this part...

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 07:51:03PM -0500, Youssef Esmat wrote:

> I think looking at the sched latency numbers alone does not show the
> complete picture. I ran the same input latency test again and tried to
> capture some of these numbers for the chrome processes.
> 
> EEVDF 1.5ms slice:
> 
> Input latency test result: 226ms
> perf sched latency:
> switches: 1,084,694
> avg:   1.139 ms
> max: 408.397 ms
> 
> EEVDF 6.0ms slice:
> 
> Input latency test result: 178ms
> perf sched latency:
> switches: 892,306
> avg:   1.145 ms
> max: 354.344 ms

> For our scenario, it is very expensive to interrupt UI threads. It
> will increase the input latency significantly. Lowering the scheduling
> latency at the cost of switching out important threads can be very
> detrimental in this workload. UI and input threads run with a nice
> value of -8.

> That said, this might not be beneficial for all workloads, and we are
> still trying our other workloads out.

Right, this seems to suggest something on your critical path (you should
trace that) has more than 3ms of compute in a single activation. 

Basically this means chrome is fairly fat on this critical path. But it
seems you know about that.

Anyway, once you know the 95% length of the longest activation on your
critical path, you can indeed set your slice to that. This should be
readily available from trace data.