From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched/fair: Drop out incomplete current period when sched averages accrue
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 03:41:41 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160411194141.GH8697@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDP4uUWevKFjjYiqyAyVPaFrLmtn11wSRMpYD60O2Jc=w@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Vincent,
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:08:04AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > @@ -2704,11 +2694,14 @@ static __always_inline int
> > __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
> > unsigned long weight, int running, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > {
> > - u64 delta, scaled_delta, periods;
> > - u32 contrib;
> > - unsigned int delta_w, scaled_delta_w, decayed = 0;
> > + u64 delta;
> > + u32 contrib, periods;
> > unsigned long scale_freq, scale_cpu;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * now rolls down to a period boundary
> > + */
> > + now = now && (u64)(~0xFFFFF);
> > delta = now - sa->last_update_time;
> > /*
> > * This should only happen when time goes backwards, which it
> > @@ -2720,89 +2713,56 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > - * Use 1024ns as the unit of measurement since it's a reasonable
> > - * approximation of 1us and fast to compute.
> > + * Use 1024*1024ns as an approximation of 1ms period, pretty close.
> > */
> > - delta >>= 10;
> > - if (!delta)
> > + periods = delta >> 20;
> > + if (!periods)
> > return 0;
> > sa->last_update_time = now;
>
> The optimization looks quite interesting but I see one potential issue
> with migration as we will lose the part of the ongoing period that is
> now not saved anymore. This lost part can be quite significant for a
> short task that ping pongs between CPUs.
Yes, basically, it is we lose precision (~1ms scale in contrast with ~1us scale).
But as I wrote, we may either lose a sub-1ms, or gain a sub-1ms, statistically,
they should even out, given the load/util updates are quite a large number of
samples, and we do want a lot of samples for the metrics, this is the point of
the entire average thing. Plus, as you also said, the incomplete current period
also plays a (somewhat) negative role here.
In addition, excluding the flat hierarchical util patch, we gain quite some
efficiency.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-12 3:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-10 22:36 [PATCH 0/4] Optimize sched avg computation and implement flat util hierarchy Yuyang Du
2016-04-10 22:36 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Optimize sum computation with a lookup table Yuyang Du
2016-04-11 9:08 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-04-11 10:41 ` Juri Lelli
2016-04-11 19:12 ` Yuyang Du
2016-04-12 10:14 ` Juri Lelli
2016-04-12 18:07 ` Yuyang Du
2016-04-13 9:11 ` Juri Lelli
2016-04-11 16:59 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-04-11 19:17 ` Yuyang Du
2016-04-12 14:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-12 18:12 ` Yuyang Du
2016-04-11 23:21 ` Joe Perches
2016-04-12 12:02 ` Juri Lelli
2016-04-11 23:07 ` Joe Perches
2016-04-10 22:36 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/fair: Drop out incomplete current period when sched averages accrue Yuyang Du
2016-04-11 9:08 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-04-11 19:41 ` Yuyang Du [this message]
2016-04-12 11:56 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-04-12 21:09 ` Yuyang Du
2016-04-13 11:11 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-04-12 12:02 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-04-12 20:14 ` Yuyang Du
2016-04-13 4:04 ` Joe Perches
2016-04-13 8:40 ` Morten Rasmussen
2016-04-13 15:13 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-04-13 15:28 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-04-13 16:20 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-04-13 18:44 ` Yuyang Du
2016-04-14 12:52 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-04-14 20:05 ` Yuyang Du
2016-04-18 17:59 ` Yuyang Du
2016-04-10 22:36 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Modify accumulated sums for load/util averages Yuyang Du
2016-04-11 17:14 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-04-10 22:36 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: Implement flat hierarchical structure for util_avg Yuyang Du
2016-04-11 12:29 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-04-11 20:37 ` Yuyang Du
2016-04-13 11:27 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-04-13 18:20 ` Yuyang Du
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160411194141.GH8697@intel.com \
--to=yuyang.du@intel.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).