public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To: Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
	Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
	Andres Oportus <andresoportus@google.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] sched/fair: use util_est in LB
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:18:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170904141817.GD2618@e110439-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEU1=P=EWa78hM0Wha=38qC7AqqVzhWahmhHNTrAco=nG=Ou9w@mail.gmail.com>

On 29-Aug 10:15, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Patrick Bellasi
> <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> wrote:
> > When the scheduler looks at the CPU utlization, the current PELT value
> > for a CPU is returned straight away. In certain scenarios this can have
> > undesired side effects on task placement.
> >
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > +/**
> > + * cpu_util_est: estimated utilization for the specified CPU
> > + * @cpu: the CPU to get the estimated utilization for
> > + *
> > + * The estimated utilization of a CPU is defined to be the maximum between its
> > + * PELT's utilization and the sum of the estimated utilization of the tasks
> > + * currently RUNNABLE on that CPU.
> > + *
> > + * This allows to properly represent the expected utilization of a CPU which
> > + * has just got a big task running since a long sleep period. At the same time
> > + * however it preserves the benefits of the "blocked load" in describing the
> > + * potential for other tasks waking up on the same CPU.
> > + *
> > + * Return: the estimated utlization for the specified CPU
> > + */
> > +static inline unsigned long cpu_util_est(int cpu)
> > +{
> > +       struct sched_avg *sa = &cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.avg;
> > +       unsigned long util = cpu_util(cpu);
> > +
> > +       if (!sched_feat(UTIL_EST))
> > +               return util;
> > +
> > +       return max(util, util_est(sa, UTIL_EST_LAST));
> > +}
> > +
> >  static inline int task_util(struct task_struct *p)
> >  {
> >         return p->se.avg.util_avg;
> > @@ -6007,11 +6033,19 @@ static int cpu_util_wake(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
> >
> >         /* Task has no contribution or is new */
> >         if (cpu != task_cpu(p) || !p->se.avg.last_update_time)
> > -               return cpu_util(cpu);
> > +               return cpu_util_est(cpu);
> >
> >         capacity = capacity_orig_of(cpu);
> >         util = max_t(long, cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.avg.util_avg - task_util(p), 0);
> >
> > +       /*
> > +        * Estimated utilization tracks only tasks already enqueued, but still
> > +        * sometimes can return a bigger value than PELT, for example when the
> > +        * blocked load is negligible wrt the estimated utilization of the
> > +        * already enqueued tasks.
> > +        */
> > +       util = max_t(long, util, cpu_util_est(cpu));
> > +
> 
> We are supposed to discount the task's util from its CPU. But the
> cpu_util_est() can potentially return cpu_util() which includes the
> task's utilization.

You right, this instead should cover all the cases:

---8<---
 static int cpu_util_wake(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
 {
-       unsigned long util, capacity;
+       unsigned long util_est = cpu_util_est(cpu);
+       unsigned long capacity;
 
        /* Task has no contribution or is new */
        if (cpu != task_cpu(p) || !p->se.avg.last_update_time)
-               return cpu_util(cpu);
+               return util_est;
 
        capacity = capacity_orig_of(cpu);
-       util = max_t(long, cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.avg.util_avg - task_util(p), 0);
+       if (cpu_util(cpu) > util_est)
+               util = max_t(long, cpu_util(cpu) - task_util(p), 0);
+       else
+               util = util_est;
 
        return (util >= capacity) ? capacity : util;
 }
---8<---

Indeed:

- if *p is the only task sleeping on that CPU, then:
      (cpu_util == task_util) > (cpu_util_est == 0)
  and thus we return:
      (cpu_util - task_util) == 0

- if other tasks are SLEEPING on the same CPU, which however is IDLE, then:
      cpu_util > (cpu_util_est == 0)
  and thus we discount *p's blocked load by returning:
      (cpu_util - task_util) >= 0

- if other tasks are RUNNABLE on that CPU and
      (cpu_util_est > cpu_util)
  then we wanna use cpu_util_est since it returns a more restrictive
  estimation of the spare capacity on that CPU, by just considering
  the expected utilization of tasks already runnable on that CPU.

What do you think?

> Thanks,
> Pavan

Cheers Patrick

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-04 14:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-25 10:20 [RFC 0/3] Utilization estimation for FAIR tasks Patrick Bellasi
2017-08-25 10:20 ` [RFC 1/3] sched/fair: add util_est on top of PELT Patrick Bellasi
2017-08-29  4:36   ` Pavan Kondeti
2017-09-04 11:13     ` Patrick Bellasi
2017-08-29  6:41   ` Pavan Kondeti
2017-09-04 10:59     ` Patrick Bellasi
2017-08-25 10:20 ` [RFC 2/3] sched/fair: use util_est in LB Patrick Bellasi
2017-08-29  4:45   ` Pavan Kondeti
2017-09-04 14:18     ` Patrick Bellasi [this message]
2017-09-04 14:59       ` Pavan Kondeti
2017-08-25 10:20 ` [RFC 3/3] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: use util_est for OPP selection Patrick Bellasi

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=20170904141817.GD2618@e110439-lin \
    --to=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
    --cc=andresoportus@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
    --cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=pkondeti@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=timmurray@google.com \
    --cc=tkjos@android.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@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