From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc patch] sched/fair: Use instantaneous load for fork/exec balancing
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:14:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5760115C.7040306@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1465891111.1694.13.camel@gmail.com>
On 14/06/16 08:58, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> SUSE's regression testing noticed that...
>
> 0905f04eb21f sched/fair: Fix new task's load avg removed from source CPU in wake_up_new_task()
>
> ...introduced a hackbench regression, and indeed it does. I think this
> regression has more to do with randomness than anything else, but in
> general...
>
> While averaging calms down load balancing, helping to keep migrations
> down to a dull roar, it's not completely wonderful when it comes to
> things that live in the here and now, hackbench being one such.
>
> time sh -c 'for i in `seq 1000`; do hackbench -p -P > /dev/null; done'
>
> real 0m55.397s
> user 0m8.320s
> sys 5m40.789s
>
> echo LB_INSTANTANEOUS_LOAD > /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features
>
> real 0m48.049s
> user 0m6.510s
> sys 5m6.291s
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
I see similar values on ARM64 (Juno r0: 2xCortex-A57 4xCortex-A53). OK,
1000 invocations of hackbench take a little bit longer but I guess it's
the fork's we're after.
- echo NO_LB_INSTANTANEOUS_LOAD > /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features
time sh -c 'for i in `seq 1000`; do hackbench -p -P > /dev/null; done'
root@juno:~# time sh -c 'for i in `seq 1000`; do hackbench -p -P >
/dev/null; done'
real 10m17.155s
user 2m56.976s
sys 38m0.324s
- echo LB_INSTANTANEOUS_LOAD > /sys/kernel/debug/sched_features
time sh -c 'for i in `seq 1000`; do hackbench -p -P > /dev/null; done'
real 9m49.832s
user 2m42.896s
sys 34m51.452s
- But I get a similar effect in case I initialize se->avg.load_avg w/ 0:
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -680,7 +680,7 @@ void init_entity_runnable_average(struct
sched_entity *se)
* will definitely be update (after enqueue).
*/
sa->period_contrib = 1023;
- sa->load_avg = scale_load_down(se->load.weight);
+ sa->load_avg = scale_load_down(0);
sa->load_sum = sa->load_avg * LOAD_AVG_MAX;
root@juno:~# time sh -c 'for i in `seq 1000`; do hackbench -p -P >
/dev/null; done'
real 9m55.396s
user 2m41.192s
sys 35m6.196s
IMHO, the hackbench performance "boost" w/o 0905f04eb21f is due to the
fact that a new task gets all it's load decayed (making it a small task)
in the __update_load_avg() call in remove_entity_load_avg() because its
se->avg.last_update_time value is 0 which creates a huge time difference
comparing it to cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time. The patch 0905f04eb21f
avoids this and thus the task stays big se->avg.load_avg = 1024.
It can't be a difference in the value of cfs_rq->removed_load_avg
because w/o the patch 0905f04eb21f, we atomic_long_add 0 and with the
patch we bail before the atomic_long_add().
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-14 14:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-14 7:58 [rfc patch] sched/fair: Use instantaneous load for fork/exec balancing Mike Galbraith
2016-06-14 14:14 ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2016-06-14 16:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-15 15:32 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-06-15 16:03 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-15 19:03 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-06-16 3:33 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-16 9:01 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-07-04 15:04 ` Matt Fleming
2016-07-04 17:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-07-06 11:45 ` Matt Fleming
2016-07-06 12:21 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-07-11 8:58 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-07-12 11:14 ` Matt Fleming
2016-06-14 22:42 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-15 7:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-16 11:46 ` [patch] sched/fair: Use instantaneous load in wakeup paths Mike Galbraith
2016-06-16 12:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-16 12:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-17 6:21 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-17 10:55 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-06-17 13:57 ` Mike Galbraith
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=5760115C.7040306@arm.com \
--to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=yuyang.du@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