lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 4/5] sched/pelt: Add a new runnable average signal
From
Date
On 14/02/2020 15:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Now that runnable_load_avg has been removed, we can replace it by a new
> signal that will highlight the runnable pressure on a cfs_rq. This signal
> track the waiting time of tasks on rq and can help to better define the
> state of rqs.
>
> At now, only util_avg is used to define the state of a rq:
> A rq with more that around 80% of utilization and more than 1 tasks is
> considered as overloaded.
>
> But the util_avg signal of a rq can become temporaly low after that a task
> migrated onto another rq which can bias the classification of the rq.
>
> When tasks compete for the same rq, their runnable average signal will be
> higher than util_avg as it will include the waiting time and we can use
> this signal to better classify cfs_rqs.
>
> The new runnable_avg will track the runnable time of a task which simply
> adds the waiting time to the running time. The runnable _avg of cfs_rq
> will be the /Sum of se's runnable_avg and the runnable_avg of group entity
> will follow the one of the rq similarly to util_avg.
>

I did a bit of playing around with tracepoints and it seems to be behaving
fine. For instance, if I spawn 12 always runnable tasks (sysbench --test=cpu)
on my Juno (6 CPUs), I get to a system-wide runnable value (\Sum cpu_runnable())
of about 12K. I've only eyeballed them, but migration of the signal values
seem fine too.

I have a slight worry that the rq-wide runnable signal might be too easy to
inflate, since we aggregate for *all* runnable tasks, and that may not play
well with your group_is_overloaded() change (despite having the imbalance_pct
on the "right" side).

In any case I'll need to convince myself of it with some messing around, and
this concerns patch 5 more than patch 4. So FWIW for this one:

Tested-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>

I also have one (two) more nit(s) below.

> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/pelt.c b/kernel/sched/pelt.c
> @@ -227,14 +231,14 @@ ___update_load_sum(u64 now, struct sched_avg *sa,
> * Step 1: accumulate *_sum since last_update_time. If we haven't
> * crossed period boundaries, finish.
> */
> - if (!accumulate_sum(delta, sa, load, running))
> + if (!accumulate_sum(delta, sa, load, runnable, running))
> return 0;
>
> return 1;
> }
>
> static __always_inline void
> -___update_load_avg(struct sched_avg *sa, unsigned long load)
> +___update_load_avg(struct sched_avg *sa, unsigned long load, unsigned long runnable)
> {
> u32 divider = LOAD_AVG_MAX - 1024 + sa->period_contrib;
>
> @@ -242,6 +246,7 @@ ___update_load_avg(struct sched_avg *sa, unsigned long load)
> * Step 2: update *_avg.
> */
> sa->load_avg = div_u64(load * sa->load_sum, divider);
> + sa->runnable_avg = div _u64(runnable * sa->runnable_sum, divider);
^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
a) b)
a) That's a tab

b) The value being passed is always 1, do we really need it to expose it as a
parameter?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-18 22:20    [W:0.127 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site