public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To: vincent.donnefort@arm.com
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
	valentin.schneider@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix task utilization accountability in cpu_util_next()
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 10:11:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YDODN1rnTqfTQOug@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210222095401.37158-1-vincent.donnefort@arm.com>

Hey Vincent,

On Monday 22 Feb 2021 at 09:54:01 (+0000), vincent.donnefort@arm.com wrote:
> From: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
> 
> Currently, cpu_util_next() estimates the CPU utilization as follows:
> 
>   max(cpu_util + task_util,
>       cpu_util_est + task_util_est)

s/task_util_est/_task_util_est

This is an important difference.

> 
> This is an issue when making a comparison between CPUs, as the task
> contribution can be either:
> 
>   (1) task_util_est, on a mostly idle CPU, where cpu_util is close to 0
>       and task_util_est > cpu_util.
>   (2) task_util, on a mostly busy CPU, where cpu_util > task_util_est.

I don't understand how this is an issue, this is by design with util-est
no?

Note that cpu_util_next() tries to accurately predict what cpu_util(@cpu)
will be once @p is enqueued on @dst_cpu. There should be no policy
decision here, we just reproduce the enqueue aggreagation -- see
util_est_enqueue() and cpu_util().

Could you please give an example where you think cpu_util_next()
computes the wrong value?

Thanks,
Quentin

  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-22 10:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-22  9:54 [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix task utilization accountability in cpu_util_next() vincent.donnefort
2021-02-22 10:11 ` Quentin Perret [this message]
2021-02-22 11:36   ` Vincent Donnefort
2021-02-22 12:23     ` Quentin Perret
2021-02-22 15:01       ` Vincent Donnefort
2021-02-22 15:58         ` Quentin Perret
2021-02-22 16:23           ` Quentin Perret
2021-02-22 16:39             ` Vincent Donnefort
2021-02-22 16:43               ` Quentin Perret
2021-02-23 14:47             ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-02-22 16:31           ` Vincent Donnefort
2021-02-22 16:35             ` Quentin Perret
2021-02-23 14:44 ` Dietmar Eggemann

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=YDODN1rnTqfTQOug@google.com \
    --to=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.donnefort@arm.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