From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753985AbcHSFDT (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 01:03:19 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:33606 "EHLO mail-pf0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750806AbcHSFDR (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 01:03:17 -0400 From: Steve Muckle X-Google-Original-From: Steve Muckle Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 22:03:13 -0700 To: Wanpeng Li Cc: Steve Muckle , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux PM list , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Vincent Guittot , Morten Rasmussen , Dietmar Eggemann , Juri Lelli , Patrick Bellasi Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: fix incorrect PELT values on SMT Message-ID: <20160819050313.GD11114@graphite.smuckle.net> References: <1471571741-19504-1-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:30:36AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > 2016-08-19 9:55 GMT+08:00 Steve Muckle : > > PELT scales its util_sum and util_avg values via > > arch_scale_cpu_capacity(). If that function is passed the CPU's sched > > domain then it will reduce the scaling capacity if SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY > > is set. PELT does not pass in the sd however. The other caller of > > arch_scale_cpu_capacity, update_cpu_capacity(), does. This means > > util_sum and util_avg scale beyond the CPU capacity on SMT. > > > > On an Intel i7-3630QM for example rq->cpu_capacity_orig is 589 but > > util_avg scales up to 1024. > > > > Fix this by passing in the sd in __update_load_avg() as well. > > I believe we notice this at least several months ago. > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/25/228 Glad to see I'm not alone in thinking this is an issue. It causes an issue with schedutil, effectively doubling the apparent demand on SMT. I don't know the load balance code well enough offhand to say whether it's an issue there. cheers, Steve