All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
	"Cc: Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>,
	Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Documentation/scheduler/schedutil.txt
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 11:05:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBtiweSfErgQ3ZVw9HB2Q7b=V4uoGS2dbaqY1KNz6kUhA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <66650f6a-0a95-706f-58cc-3cd241e30dda@arm.com>

On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 at 10:30, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 20/11/2020 09:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:55:27AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>  - In saturated scenarios task movement will cause some transient dips,
> >>    suppose we have a CPU saturated with 4 tasks, then when we migrate a task
> >>    to an idle CPU, the old CPU will have a 'running' value of 0.75 while the
> >>    new CPU will gain 0.25. This is inevitable and time progression will
> >>    correct this. XXX do we still guarantee f_max due to no idle-time?
> >
> > Do we want something like this? Is the 1.5 threshold sane? (it's been too
> > long since I looked at actual numbers here)
>
> Did some tests on a big.little system:
>
>  (1) rt-app workload on big CPU:
>
>  - task0-3 (runtime/period=4000us/16000us, started with
>    4000us delay to each other) run on CPU1
>  - then task3 migrates to CPU2 and runs there for 64ms
>  - then task2 migrates to CPU2 too and both tasks run there
>    for another 64ms
>
> ...
>     task3-3-1684  [001]  3982.798729: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=1 path=/ load=232890 runnable=3260 util=1011
> migration/1-14    [001]  3982.798756: sched_migrate_task:   comm=task3-3 pid=1684 prio=101 orig_cpu=1 dest_cpu=2*
> migration/1-14    [001]  3982.798767: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=1 path=/ load=161374 runnable=2263 util=*700* <-- util dip !!!
>     task1-1-1682  [001]  3982.799802: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=1 path=/ load=160988 runnable=2257 util=706
> ...
>     task2-2-1683  [001]  3982.849123: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=1 path=/ load=161124 runnable=2284 util=904
>     task2-2-1683  [001]  3982.851960: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=1 path=/ load=160130 runnable=2271 util=911
> migration/1-14    [001]  3982.851984: sched_migrate_task:   comm=task2-2 pid=1683 prio=101 orig_cpu=1 dest_cpu=2**
> migration/1-14    [001]  3982.851995: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=1 path=/ load=88672 runnable=*1257* util=512 <-- runnable below 1536
>     task1-1-1682  [001]  3982.852983: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=1 path=/ load=88321 runnable=1252 util=521
> ...
>
>
> *  task1,2,3 remain on CPU1 and still have to catch up, no idle
>    time on CPU1
>
> ** task 1,2 remain on CPU1, there is idle time on CPU1!
>
>
> (2) rt-app workload on LITTLE CPU (orig cpu_capacity: 446)
>
>  - task0-3 (runtime/period=1742us/16000us, started with
>    4000us delay to each other) run on CPU4
>  - then task3 migrates to CPU5 and runs there for 64ms
>  - then task2 migrates to CPU5 too and both tasks run there
>    for another 64ms
>
> ...
>     task1-1-1777  [004]   789.443015: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=4 path=/ load=234718 runnable=3018 util=976
> migration/4-29    [004]   789.444718: sched_migrate_task:   comm=task3-3 pid=1779 prio=101 orig_cpu=4 dest_cpu=5*
> migration/4-29    [004]   789.444739: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=4 path=/ load=163543 runnable=2114 util=*778* <--util dip !!!
>     task2-2-1778  [004]   789.447013: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=4 path=/ load=163392 runnable=2120 util=777
> ...
>     task1-1-1777  [004]   789.507012: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=4 path=/ load=164482 runnable=2223 util=879
> migration/4-29    [004]   789.508023: sched_migrate_task:   comm=task2-2 pid=1778 prio=101 orig_cpu=4 dest_cpu=5**
> migration/4-29    [004]   789.508044: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=4 path=/ load=94099 runnable=*1264* util=611 <-- runnable below 1536
>     task0-0-1776  [004]   789.511011: sched_pelt_cfs:       cpu=4 path=/ load=93898 runnable=1264 util=622
> ...
>
> *  task1,2,3 remain on CPU1 and still have to catch up, no idle
>    time on CPU1
>
> ** task 1,2 remain on CPU1, no idle time on CPU1 yet.
>
> So for the big CPU, there is idle time and for the LITTLE there
> isn't with runnable below the threshold.

I'm not sure to catch what you want to highlight with your tests ?

>
> As Quentin pointed out, sugov_cpu_is_busy() (only implemented on
> 'single') tries to do something similar.
>
> I assume that 'another utilization metric' mentioned in commit
> b7eaf1aab9f8 ("cpufreq: schedutil: Avoid reducing frequency of
> busy CPUs prematurely") is rq->cfs.avg.runnable_avg.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-11-23 10:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-20  7:55 [RFC] Documentation/scheduler/schedutil.txt Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20  8:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20  9:13   ` Quentin Perret
2020-11-20  9:19     ` Viresh Kumar
2020-11-20  9:27       ` Quentin Perret
2020-11-23  9:30   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-23 10:05     ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2020-11-23 11:27       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-23 13:42         ` Vincent Guittot
2020-11-23 18:39           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-20 11:45 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-11-20 14:37 ` Morten Rasmussen
2020-11-23  9:26 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-23 14:51   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-02 14:18 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-02 15:54   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-02 16:45     ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-02 16:58       ` Peter Zijlstra

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='CAKfTPtBtiweSfErgQ3ZVw9HB2Q7b=V4uoGS2dbaqY1KNz6kUhA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.