Re: [PATCH 10/24] sched/uclamg: Handle delayed dequeue

Vincent Guittot
2024-08-22T12:10:21Z

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 at 14:08, Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Vincent,
>
> On 8/22/24 11:28, Luis Machado wrote:
> > On 8/22/24 10:53, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 at 11:22, Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 8/22/24 09:19, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 15:34, Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Peter,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry for bombarding this thread in the last couple of days. I'm seeing
> >>>>> several issues in the latest tip/sched/core after these patches landed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What I'm now seeing seems to be an unbalanced call of util_est. First, I applied
> >>>>
> >>>> I also see a remaining util_est for idle rq because of an unbalance
> >>>> call of util_est_enqueue|dequeue
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I can confirm issues with the utilization values and frequencies being driven
> >>> seemingly incorrectly, in particular for little cores.
> >>>
> >>> What I'm seeing with the stock series is high utilization values for some tasks
> >>> and little cores having their frequencies maxed out for extended periods of
> >>> time. Sometimes for 5+ or 10+ seconds, which is excessive as the cores are mostly
> >>> idle. But whenever certain tasks get scheduled there, they have a very high util
> >>> level and so the frequency is kept at max.
> >>>
> >>> As a consequence this drives up power usage.
> >>>
> >>> I gave Hongyan's draft fix a try and observed a much more reasonable behavior for
> >>> the util numbers and frequencies being used for the little cores. With his fix,
> >>> I can also see lower energy use for my specific benchmark.
> >>
> >> The main problem is that the util_est of a delayed dequeued task
> >> remains on the rq and keeps the rq utilization high and as a result
> >> the frequency higher than needed.
> >>
> >> The below seems to works for me and keep sync the enqueue/dequeue of
> >> uti_test with the enqueue/dequeue of the task as if de dequeue was not
> >> delayed
> >>
> >> Another interest is that we will not try to migrate a delayed dequeue
> >> sleeping task that doesn't actually impact the current load of the cpu
> >> and as a result will not help in the load balance. I haven't yet fully
> >> checked what would happen with hotplug
> >
> > Thanks. Those are good points. Let me go and try your patch.
>
> I gave your fix a try, but it seems to make things worse. It is comparable
> to the behavior we had before Peter added the uclamp imbalance fix, so I
> believe there is something incorrect there.

we need to filter case where task are enqueued/dequeued several
consecutive times. That's what I'm look now