From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3206FC43441 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:21:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBAFD2086B for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:21:40 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EBAFD2086B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728675AbeK2CXj (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2018 21:23:39 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:43380 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728163AbeK2CXj (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2018 21:23:39 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A57942379; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 07:21:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from e110439-lin (e110439-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.194.43]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D9C63F5AF; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 07:21:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:21:33 +0000 From: Patrick Bellasi To: Vincent Guittot Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Paul Turner , Ben Segall , Thara Gopinath , pkondeti@codeaurora.org, Quentin Perret , Srinivas Pandruvada Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] sched/fair: update scale invariance of PELT Message-ID: <20181128152133.GD23094@e110439-lin> References: <1542711308-25256-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1542711308-25256-3-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20181128100241.GA2131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20181128115336.GB23094@e110439-lin> <20181128144039.GC23094@e110439-lin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 28-Nov 15:55, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 15:40, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > > On 28-Nov 14:33, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 12:53, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > > > > > > On 28-Nov 11:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:54:13AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Is there anything else that I should do for these patches ? > > > > > > > > > > IIRC, Morten mention they break util_est; Patrick was going to explain. > > > > > > > > I guess the problem is that, once we cross the current capacity, > > > > strictly speaking util_avg does not represent anymore a utilization. > > > > > > > > With the new signal this could happen and we end up storing estimated > > > > utilization samples which will overestimate the task requirements. > > > > > > > > We will have a spike in estimated utilization at next wakeup, since we > > > > use MAX(util_avg@dequeue_time, ewma). Potentially we also inflate the EWMA in > > > > case we collect multiple samples above the current capacity. > > > > > > TBH I don't see how it's different from current implementation with a > > > task that was scheduled on big core and now wakes up on little core. > > > The util_est is overestimated as well. > > > > While running below the capacity of a CPU, either big or LITTLE, we > > can still measure the actual used bandwidth as long as we have idle > > time. If the task is then moved into a lower capacity core, I think > > it's still safe to assume that, likely, it would need more capacity. > > > > Why do you say it's the same ? > > In the example of a task that runs 39ms in period of 80ms that we used > during previous version, > the utilization on the big core will reach 709 so will util_est too > When the task migrates on little core (512), util_est is higher than > current cpu capacity Right, and what's the problem ? 1) We know that PELT is calibrated to 32ms period task and in your example, since the runtime is higher then the half-life, it's correct to estimate a utilization higher then 50%. PELT utilization is defined _based on the half-life_: thus your task having a 50% duty cycle does not mean we are not correct if report a utilization != 50%. It would be as broken as reporting 10% utilization for a task running 100ms every 1s. 2) If it was a 70% task on a previous activation, once it's moved into a lower capacity CPU it's still correct to assume that it's likely going to require the same bandwidth and thus will be under-provisioned. I still don't see where we are wrong in this case :/ To me it looks different then the problem I described. > > With your new signal instead, once we cross the current capacity, > > utilization is just not anymore utilization. Thus, IMHO it make sense > > avoid to accumulate a sample for what we call "estimated utilization". > > > > I would also say that, with the current implementation which caps > > utilization to the current capacity, we get better estimation in > > general. At least we can say with absolute precision: > > > > "the task needs _at least_ that amount of capacity". > > > > Potentially we can also flag the task as being under-provisioned, in > > case there was not idle time, and _let a policy_ decide what to do > > with it and the granted information we have. > > > > While, with your new signal, once we are over the current capacity, > > the "utilization" is just a sort of "random" number at best useful to > > drive some conclusions about how long the task has been delayed. > > > > IOW, I fear that we are embedding a policy within a signal which is > > currently representing something very well defined: how much cpu > > bandwidth a task used. While, latency/under-provisioning policies > > perhaps should be better placed somewhere else. > > > > Perhaps I've missed it in some of the previous discussions: > > have we have considered/discussed this signal-vs-policy aspect ? What's your opinion on the above instead ? -- #include Patrick Bellasi