From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/14] sched: Add over-utilization/tipping point
 indicator
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 14:18:51 +0100
Message-ID: <20180802131849.mqpt5lbtcqrxbwig@queper01-lin>
References: <20180724122521.22109-1-quentin.perret@arm.com>
 <20180724122521.22109-10-quentin.perret@arm.com>
 <20180802122629.GU2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180802130337.uf6tlac2hg4nkbwr@queper01-lin>
 <20180802130801.GL2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180802130801.GL2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, chris.redpath@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@arm.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, thara.gopinath@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, tkjos@google.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, smuckle@google.com, adharmap@quicinc.com, skannan@quicinc.com, pkondeti@codeaurora.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, edubezval@gmail.com, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, currojerez@riseup.net, javi.merino@kernel.org
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On Thursday 02 Aug 2018 at 15:08:01 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 02:03:38PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Thursday 02 Aug 2018 at 14:26:29 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:25:16PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > > @@ -5100,8 +5118,17 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > > >  		update_cfs_group(se);
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > -	if (!se)
> > > > +	if (!se) {
> > > >  		add_nr_running(rq, 1);
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		 * The utilization of a new task is 'wrong' so wait for it
> > > > +		 * to build some utilization history before trying to detect
> > > > +		 * the overutilized flag.
> > > > +		 */
> > > > +		if (flags & ENQUEUE_WAKEUP)
> > > > +			update_overutilized_status(rq);
> > > > +
> > > > +	}
> > > >  
> > > >  	hrtick_update(rq);
> > > >  }
> > > 
> > > That is a somewhat dodgy hack. There is no guarantee what so ever that
> > > when the task wakes next its history is any better. The comment doesn't
> > > reflect this I feel.
> > 
> > AFAICT the main use-case here is to avoid re-enabling the load balance
> > and ruining all the task placement because of a tiny task. I don't
> > really see how we can do that differently ...
> 
> Sure I realize that.. but it doesn't completely avoid it. Suppose this
> new task instantly blocks and wakes up again. Then its util signal will
> be exactly what you didn't want but we'll account it and cause the above
> scenario you wanted to avoid.

That is true. ... I also realize now that this patch was written long
before util_est, and that also has an impact here, especially in the
scenario you described where the task blocks. So any wake-up after the
first enqueue will risk to overutilize the system, even if the task
blocked for ages.

Hmm ...