From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, LKP <lkp@01.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp-developer] [sched/fair] 4e5160766f: +149% ftq.noise.50% regression
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:37:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170103113759.GA30094@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cfdd7004-efe0-1b90-2359-a08092c1fbe1@arm.com>
Hi Dietmar and Ying,
Le Tuesday 03 Jan 2017 à 11:38:39 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann a écrit :
> Hi Vincent and Ying,
>
> On 01/02/2017 04:42 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >Hi Ying,
> >
> >On 28 December 2016 at 09:17, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> >>Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:
> >>
> >>>Le Tuesday 13 Dec 2016 . 09:47:30 (+0800), Huang, Ying a .crit :
> >>>>Hi, Vincent,
> >>>>
> >>>>Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
[snip]
> >>
> >>The test result is as follow,
> >>
> >>=========================================================================================
> >>compiler/cpufreq_governor/freq/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/samples/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> >> gcc-6/powersave/20/x86_64-rhel-7.2/100%/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/6000ss/lkp-hsw-d01/cache/ftq
> >>
> >>commit:
> >> 4e5160766fcc9f41bbd38bac11f92dce993644aa: first bad commit
> >> 09a43ace1f986b003c118fdf6ddf1fd685692d49: parent of first bad commit
> >> 0613870ea53a7a279d8d37f2a3ce40aafc155fc8: debug commit with above patch
> >>
> >>4e5160766fcc9f41 09a43ace1f986b003c118fdf6d 0613870ea53a7a279d8d37f2a3
> >>---------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
> >> %stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev
> >> \ | \ | \
> >> 61670 ±228% -96.5% 2148 ± 11% -94.7% 3281 ± 58% ftq.noise.25%
> >> 3463 ± 10% -60.0% 1386 ± 19% -26.3% 2552 ± 58% ftq.noise.50%
> >> 1116 ± 23% -72.6% 305.99 ± 30% -35.8% 716.15 ± 64% ftq.noise.75%
> >> 3843815 ± 3% +3.1% 3963589 ± 1% -49.6% 1938221 ±100% ftq.time.involuntary_context_switches
> >> 5.33 ± 30% +21.4% 6.46 ± 14% -71.7% 1.50 ±108% time.system_time
> >>
> >>
> >>It appears that the system_time and involuntary_context_switches reduced
> >>much after applied the debug patch, which is good from noise point of
> >>view. ftq.noise.50% reduced compared with the first bad commit, but
> >>have not restored to that of the parent of the first bad commit.
> >
> >Thanks for testing. I will try to improve it a bit but not sure that I
> >can reduce more.
>
> Is this a desktop system where this regression comes from autogroups (1
> level taskgroups) or a server system with systemd (2 level taskgroups)?
>
> Since the PELT rewrite (v4.2) I have ~60 autogroups per cpu
> (&rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list) on my Ubuntu desktop system permanently (Intel
> i7-4750HQ) whereas in v4.1 there were 0 - 10.
>
> $ for i in `seq 0 7`; do cat /proc/sched_debug | grep
> "cfs_rq\[$i\]:/autogroup-" | wc -l; done
> 58
> 61
> 63
> 65
> 60
> 59
> 62
> 56
>
> Couldn't we still remove these autogroups by if (!cfs_rq->nr_running &&
> !se->avg.load_avg && !se->avg.util_avg) in update_blocked_averages()?
>
> Vincent, like we discussed in September last year, the proper fix would
> probably be a cfs-rq->nr_attached which IMHO is not doable w/o being an
> atomic because of migrate_task_rq_fair()->remove_entity_load_avg() not
> holding the rq lock.
I remember the discussion and even if I agree that a large number of taskgroup
increases the number of loop in update_blocked_averages() and as a result the
time spent in the update, I don't think that this is the root cause of
this regression because the patch "sched/fair: Propagate asynchrous detach"
doesn't add more loops to update_blocked_averages but it adds more thing to do
per loop.
Then, I think I'm still too conservative in the condition for calling
update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0). This call has been added to
propagate gcfs_rq->propagate_avg flag to parent so we don't need to call it
even if load_avg is not null but only when propagate_avg flag is set. The
patch below should improve thing compare to the previous version because
it will call update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0) only if an asynchrounous
detach happened (propagate_avg is set).
Ying, could you test the patch below instead of the previous one ?
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 6559d19..a4f5c35 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6915,6 +6915,7 @@ static void update_blocked_averages(int cpu)
{
struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
+ struct sched_entity *se;
unsigned long flags;
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
@@ -6932,9 +6933,10 @@ static void update_blocked_averages(int cpu)
if (update_cfs_rq_load_avg(cfs_rq_clock_task(cfs_rq), cfs_rq, true))
update_tg_load_avg(cfs_rq, 0);
- /* Propagate pending load changes to the parent */
- if (cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu])
- update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0);
+ /* Propagate pending load changes to the parent if any */
+ se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu];
+ if (se && cfs_rq->propagate_avg)
+ update_load_avg(se, 0);
}
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
}
--
2.7.4
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-03 11:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-12 5:43 [lkp-developer] [sched/fair] 4e5160766f: +149% ftq.noise.50% regression kernel test robot
2016-12-12 13:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-12-13 1:47 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2016-12-22 15:12 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-12-28 8:17 ` Huang, Ying
2017-01-02 15:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2017-01-03 10:38 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-01-03 11:37 ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2017-01-04 3:08 ` Huang, Ying
2017-01-04 14:06 ` Vincent Guittot
2017-02-21 2:40 ` Huang, Ying
2017-02-27 9:44 ` Vincent Guittot
2017-02-28 0:33 ` Huang, Ying
2017-02-28 9:35 ` Vincent Guittot
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=20170103113759.GA30094@linaro.org \
--to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/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