From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Quentin Perret Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/14] sched: Add over-utilization/tipping point indicator Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 17:10:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20180802161027.v2ctgscuc4uxbb7u@queper01-lin> References: <20180802130337.uf6tlac2hg4nkbwr@queper01-lin> <20180802130801.GL2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180802131849.mqpt5lbtcqrxbwig@queper01-lin> <20180802141424.ju4jxxbk6pxw3kyq@queper01-lin> <20180802153035.vjtmqwdwujvt7ojs@queper01-lin> <20180802160009.uhwwj3tqrqmv7q5a@queper01-lin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Vincent Guittot Cc: Peter Zijlstra , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel , "open list:THERMAL" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , Ingo Molnar , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Chris Redpath , Patrick Bellasi , Valentin Schneider , Thara Gopinath , viresh kumar , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , "Cc: Steve Muckle" , adharmap@quicinc.com, "Kannan, Saravana" , pkondeti@codeaurora.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 02 Aug 2018 at 18:07:49 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 18:00, Quentin Perret wrote: > > > > On Thursday 02 Aug 2018 at 17:55:24 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 17:30, Quentin Perret wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday 02 Aug 2018 at 17:14:15 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 16:14, Quentin Perret wrote: > > > > > > Good point, setting the util_avg to 0 for new tasks should help > > > > > > filtering out those tiny tasks too. And that would match with the idea > > > > > > of letting tasks build their history before looking at their util_avg ... > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is one difference w.r.t frequency selection. The current code > > > > > > won't mark the system overutilized, but will let sugov raise the > > > > > > frequency when a new task is enqueued. So in case of a fork bomb, we > > > > > > > > > > If the initial value of util_avg is 0, we should not have any impact > > > > > on the util_avg of the cfs rq on which the task is attached, isn't it > > > > > ? so this should not impact both the over utilization state and the > > > > > frequency selected by sugov or I'm missing something ? > > > > > > > > What I tried to say is that setting util_avg to 0 for new tasks will > > > > prevent schedutil from raising the frequency in case of a fork bomb, and > > > > I think that could be an issue. And I think this isn't an issue with the > > > > patch as-is ... > > > > > > ok. So you also want to deal with fork bomb > > > Not sure that you don't have some problem with current proposal too > > > because select_task_rq_fair will always return prev_cpu because > > > util_avg and util_est are 0 at that time > > > > But find_idlest_cpu() should select a CPU using load in case of a forkee > > no ? > > So you have to wait for the next tick that will set the overutilized > and disable the want_energy. Until this point, all new tasks will be > put on the current cpu want_energy should always be false for forkees, because we set it only for SD_BALANCE_WAKE.