public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: account update_blocked_averages in newidle_balance cost
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 22:40:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211005204026.GD174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211004171451.24090-2-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>

On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 07:14:50PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> The time spent to update the blocked load can be significant depending of
> the complexity fo the cgroup hierarchy. Take this time into account when
> deciding to stop newidle_balance() because it exceeds the expected idle
> time.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 8943dbb94365..1f78b2e3b71c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -10810,7 +10810,7 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
>  	int this_cpu = this_rq->cpu;
>  	struct sched_domain *sd;
>  	int pulled_task = 0;
> -	u64 curr_cost = 0;
> +	u64 t0, domain_cost, curr_cost = 0;
>  
>  	update_misfit_status(NULL, this_rq);
>  
> @@ -10855,11 +10855,14 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
>  
>  	raw_spin_rq_unlock(this_rq);
>  
> +	t0 = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu);
>  	update_blocked_averages(this_cpu);
> +	domain_cost = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu) - t0;
> +	curr_cost += domain_cost;
> +
>  	rcu_read_lock();
>  	for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd) {
>  		int continue_balancing = 1;
> -		u64 t0, domain_cost;
>  
>  		if (this_rq->avg_idle < curr_cost + sd->max_newidle_lb_cost) {
>  			update_next_balance(sd, &next_balance);

Does this make sense? It avoids a bunch of clock calls (and thereby
accounts more actual time).

Also, perhaps we should some asymmetric IIR instead of a strict MAX
filter for max_newidle_lb_cost.

---
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched/fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -10759,9 +10759,9 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *th
 {
 	unsigned long next_balance = jiffies + HZ;
 	int this_cpu = this_rq->cpu;
+	u64 t0, t1, curr_cost = 0;
 	struct sched_domain *sd;
 	int pulled_task = 0;
-	u64 t0, domain_cost, curr_cost = 0;
 
 	update_misfit_status(NULL, this_rq);
 
@@ -10808,8 +10808,9 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *th
 
 	t0 = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu);
 	update_blocked_averages(this_cpu);
-	domain_cost = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu) - t0;
-	curr_cost += domain_cost;
+	t1 = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu);
+	curr_cost += t1 - t0;
+	t0 = t1;
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd) {
@@ -10821,17 +10822,19 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *th
 		}
 
 		if (sd->flags & SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE) {
-			t0 = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu);
+			u64 domain_cost;
 
 			pulled_task = load_balance(this_cpu, this_rq,
 						   sd, CPU_NEWLY_IDLE,
 						   &continue_balancing);
 
-			domain_cost = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu) - t0;
+			t1 = sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu);
+			domain_cost = t1 - t0;
 			if (domain_cost > sd->max_newidle_lb_cost)
 				sd->max_newidle_lb_cost = domain_cost;
 
 			curr_cost += domain_cost;
+			t0 = t1;
 		}
 
 		update_next_balance(sd, &next_balance);

  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-05 20:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-04 17:14 [PATCH 0/2] sched/fair: Improve cost accounting of newidle_balance Vincent Guittot
2021-10-04 17:14 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: account update_blocked_averages in newidle_balance cost Vincent Guittot
2021-10-05 20:40   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-10-06  7:52     ` Vincent Guittot
2021-10-06  8:16       ` Vincent Guittot
2021-10-04 17:14 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Skip update_blocked_averages if we are defering load balance Vincent Guittot
2021-10-05 20:49   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-06  8:12     ` Vincent Guittot
2021-10-04 23:06 ` [PATCH 0/2] sched/fair: Improve cost accounting of newidle_balance Tim Chen

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=20211005204026.GD174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.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