lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 09/14] sched: Add over-utilization/tipping point indicator
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 15:49, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 10:18, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday 03 Aug 2018 at 09:48:47 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 18:59, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote:
> > > I'm not really concerned about re-enabling load balance but more that
> > > the effort of packing of tasks in few cpus/clusters that EAS tries to
> > > do can be broken for every new task.
> >
> > Well, re-enabling load balance immediately would break the nice placement
> > that EAS found, because it would shuffle all tasks around and break the
> > packing strategy. Letting that sole new task go in find_idlest_cpu()
>
> Sorry I was not clear in my explanation. Re enabling load balance
> would be a problem of course. I wanted to say that there is few chance
> that this will re-enable the load balance immediately and break EAS
> and I'm not worried by this case. But i'm only concerned by the new
> task being put outside EAS policy.
>
> For example, if you run on hikey960 the simple script below, which
> can't really be seen as a fork bomb IMHO, you will see threads
> scheduled on big cores every 0.5 seconds whereas everything should be
> packed on little core :
> for i in {0..10}; do
> echo "t"$i
> sleep 0.5
> done
>
> > shouldn't impact the placement of existing tasks. That might have an energy
> > cost for that one task, yes, but it's really hard to do anything smarter
> > with new tasks IMO ... EAS simply can't work without a utilization value.
> >
> > > So I wonder what is better for EAS : Make sure to efficiently spread
> > > newly created tasks in cas of fork bomb or try to not break EAS task
> > > placement with every newly created tasks
> >
> > That shouldn't break the placement per se, we're just making one
> > temporary exception for new tasks. What do you think 'the right thing'
> > to do is ? To just put new tasks on prev_cpu or something like that ?
>
> I think that EAS, which is about saving power, could be a bit power
> friendly when it has to make some assumptions about new task.
>
> >
> > That might help some use-cases I suppose, but will probably harm others ...
> > I'm just not too keen on making assumptions about the size of new tasks,
>
> But you are already doing some assumptions by letting the default
> mode, which use load_avg, selecting the task for you. The comment of

s/selecting the task/selecting the cpu/

> the init function of load_avg states:
>
> void init_entity_runnable_average()
> {
> ...
> /*
> * Tasks are intialized with full load to be seen as heavy tasks until
> * they get a chance to stabilize to their real load level.
> * Group entities are intialized with zero load to reflect the fact that
> * nothing has been attached to the task group yet.
> */
>
> So it means that EAS makes the assumption that new task are heavy
> tasks until they get a chance to stabilize
>
> Regards,
> Vincent
>
> > that's all. But I'm definitely open to ideas if there is something
> > smarter we can do.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Quentin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-03 16:22    [W:0.091 / U:1.876 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site