From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757680Ab3DSJhg (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:37:36 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:57852 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755281Ab3DSJhf (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:37:35 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19moBoYNoxmwEXDnSEFrTMbRwBNmehtV2f2yuXvkQ TdTyp0VO7korlK Message-ID: <1366364246.4708.79.camel@marge.simpson.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH Resend v6] sched: fix wrong rq's runnable_avg update with rt tasks From: Mike Galbraith To: Vincent Guittot Cc: linux-kernel , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Paul Turner , Steven Rostedt , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:37:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1366363304.4708.75.camel@marge.simpson.net> References: <1366302867-5055-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1366345833.4708.17.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1366359290.4708.48.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1366363304.4708.75.camel@marge.simpson.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 11:21 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 10:50 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On 19 April 2013 10:14, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 09:49 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > >> On 19 April 2013 06:30, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > >> > On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 18:34 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > >> >> The current update of the rq's load can be erroneous when RT tasks are > > >> >> involved > > >> >> > > >> >> The update of the load of a rq that becomes idle, is done only if the avg_idle > > >> >> is less than sysctl_sched_migration_cost. If RT tasks and short idle duration > > >> >> alternate, the runnable_avg will not be updated correctly and the time will be > > >> >> accounted as idle time when a CFS task wakes up. > > >> >> > > >> >> A new idle_enter function is called when the next task is the idle function > > >> >> so the elapsed time will be accounted as run time in the load of the rq, > > >> >> whatever the average idle time is. The function update_rq_runnable_avg is > > >> >> removed from idle_balance. > > >> >> > > >> >> When a RT task is scheduled on an idle CPU, the update of the rq's load is > > >> >> not done when the rq exit idle state because CFS's functions are not > > >> >> called. Then, the idle_balance, which is called just before entering the > > >> >> idle function, updates the rq's load and makes the assumption that the > > >> >> elapsed time since the last update, was only running time. > > >> >> > > >> >> As a consequence, the rq's load of a CPU that only runs a periodic RT task, > > >> >> is close to LOAD_AVG_MAX whatever the running duration of the RT task is. > > >> > > > >> > Why do we care what rq's load says, if the only thing running is a > > >> > periodic RT task? I _think_ I recall that stuff being put under the > > >> > > >> cfs scheduler will use a wrong rq load the next time it wants to schedule a task > > >> > > >> > throttle specifically to not waste cycles doing that on every > > >> > microscopic idle. > > >> > > >> yes but this lead to the wrong computation of runnable_avg_sum. To be > > >> more precise, we only need to call __update_entity_runnable_avg, > > >> __update_tg_runnable_avg is not mandatory in this step. > > > > > > If it only scares fair class tasks away from the periodic rt load, that > > > seems like a benefit to me, not a liability. If we really really need > > > > I'm not sure that such behavior that is only based on erroneous value, > > is good one. > > > > > perfect load numbers, fine, we have to eat some cycles, but when I look > > > at it, it looks like one of those "Perfect is the enemy of good" things. > > > > The target is not perfect number but good enough to be usable. The > > systctl_migration_cost threshold is good for idle balancing but can > > generates wrong load value > > But again, why do we care? To be able to mix rt and fair loads and > still make pretty mixed load utilization numbers? Paying a general case > fast path price to make strange (to me) load utilization numbers pretty > is not very attractive. So I'm not convinced this is a good thing to do, but it's not my call, that's Peter and Ingos job, so having expressed my opinion, I'll shut up and let them do their thing ;-) -Mike