From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>,
"rjw@rjwysocki.net" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched: Introduce scale-invariant load tracking
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 14:53:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141008135339.GC1788@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtAQ5FqHqdqDHDKg11XOHt_i0EsQFTuKg4OpreYA9a74Gg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 12:21:45PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 October 2014 13:00, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 09:34:28PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 06:23:43PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Why haven't you used arch_scale_freq_capacity which has a similar
> >> > > purpose in scaling the CPU capacity except the additional sched_domain
> >> > > pointer argument ?
> >> >
> >> > To be honest I'm not happy with introducing another arch-function
> >> > either and I'm happy to change that. It wasn't really clear to me which
> >> > functions that would remain after your cpu_capacity rework patches, so I
> >> > added this one. Now that we have most of the patches for capacity
> >> > scaling and scale-invariant load-tracking on the table I think we have a
> >> > better chance of figuring out which ones are needed and exactly how they
> >> > are supposed to work.
> >> >
> >> > arch_scale_load_capacity() compensates for both frequency scaling and
> >> > micro-architectural differences, while arch_scale_freq_capacity() only
> >> > for frequency. As long as we can use arch_scale_cpu_capacity() to
> >> > provide the micro-architecture scaling we can just do the scaling in two
> >> > operations rather than one similar to how it is done for capacity in
> >> > update_cpu_capacity(). I can fix that in the next version. It will cost
> >> > an extra function call and multiplication though.
> >> >
> >> > To make sure that runnable_avg_{sum, period} are still bounded by
> >> > LOAD_AVG_MAX, arch_scale_{cpu,freq}_capacity() must both return a factor
> >> > in the range 0..SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE.
> >>
> >> I would certainly like some words in the Changelog on how and that the
> >> math is still free of overflows. Clearly you've thought about it, so
> >> please feel free to elucidate the rest of us :-)
> >
> > Sure. The easiest way to avoid introducing overflows is to ensure that
> > we always scale by a factor >= 1.0. That should be true as long as
> > arch_scale_{cpu,freq}_capacity() never returns anything greater than
> > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE (= 1024 = 1.0).
>
> the current ARM arch_scale_cpu is in the range [1536..0] which is free
> of overflow AFAICT
If I'm not mistaken, that will cause an overflow in
__update_task_entity_contrib():
static inline void __update_task_entity_contrib(struct sched_entity *se)
{
u32 contrib;
/* avoid overflowing a 32-bit type w/ SCHED_LOAD_SCALE */
contrib = se->avg.runnable_avg_sum * scale_load_down(se->load.weight);
contrib /= (se->avg.avg_period + 1);
se->avg.load_avg_contrib = scale_load(contrib);
}
With arch_scale_cpu_capacity() > 1024 se->avg.runnable_avg_sum is no
longer bounded by LOAD_AVG_MAX = 47742. scale_load_down(se->load.weight)
== se->load.weight =< 88761.
47742 * 88761 = 4237627662 (2^32 = 4294967296)
To avoid overflow se->avg.runnable_avg_sum must be less than 2^32/88761
= 48388, which means that arch_scale_cpu_capacity() must be in the range
0..48388*1024/47742 = 0..1037.
I also think it is easier to have a fixed defined max scaling factor,
but that might just be me.
Regarding the ARM arch_scale_cpu_capacity() implementation, I think that
can be changed to fit the 0..1024 range easily. Currently, it will only
report a non-default (1024) capacity for big.LITTLE systems and actually
enabling it (requires a certain property to be set in device tree) leads
to broken load-balancing decisions. We have discussed that several times
in the past. I wouldn't recommend enabling it until the load-balance
code can deal with big.LITTLE compute capacities correctly. This is also
why it isn't implemented by ARM64.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-08 13:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-22 16:24 [PATCH 0/7] sched: Scale-invariant per-entity load-tracking Morten Rasmussen
2014-09-22 16:24 ` [PATCH 1/7] sched: Introduce scale-invariant load tracking Morten Rasmussen
2014-09-25 13:48 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-09-25 17:23 ` Morten Rasmussen
2014-09-26 7:36 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-09-26 9:38 ` Morten Rasmussen
2014-10-02 20:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-08 11:00 ` Morten Rasmussen
2014-10-08 11:21 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-10-08 13:53 ` Morten Rasmussen [this message]
2014-10-08 14:08 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-10-08 14:16 ` Morten Rasmussen
2014-10-08 11:38 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-10-08 14:05 ` Morten Rasmussen
2014-10-10 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-08 0:50 ` Yuyang Du
2014-10-08 12:54 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-10-10 9:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-10 9:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-09-22 16:24 ` [PATCH 2/7] cpufreq: Architecture specific callback for frequency changes Morten Rasmussen
2014-10-08 6:07 ` Mike Turquette
2014-10-08 6:26 ` [PATCH RFC 0/2] introduce capacity_ops to CFS Mike Turquette
2014-10-08 6:26 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] sched: cfs: introduce capacity_ops Mike Turquette
2014-10-08 8:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
[not found] ` <20141008232836.4379.3339@quantum>
2014-10-09 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
[not found] ` <20141009173433.4379.58492@quantum>
2014-10-09 19:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-08 6:26 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] cpufreq: arm_big_little: provide cpu capacity Mike Turquette
2014-10-08 15:48 ` Morten Rasmussen
[not found] ` <20141008223732.4379.78047@quantum>
2014-10-09 9:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
[not found] ` <20141009172513.4379.56718@quantum>
2014-10-09 17:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-09-22 16:24 ` [PATCH 3/7] arm: Frequency invariant scheduler load-tracking support Morten Rasmussen
2014-09-22 16:24 ` [PATCH 4/7] arm: Micro-architecture invariant load tracking support Morten Rasmussen
2014-09-22 16:24 ` [PATCH 5/7] sched: Implement usage tracking Morten Rasmussen
2014-09-22 16:24 ` [PATCH 6/7] sched: Make sched entity usage tracking scale-invariant Morten Rasmussen
2014-09-22 17:13 ` bsegall
2014-09-23 13:35 ` Morten Rasmussen
2014-10-02 21:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-09-22 16:24 ` [PATCH 7/7] sched: Track sched_entity usage contributions Morten Rasmussen
2014-09-22 17:09 ` bsegall
2014-09-23 13:59 ` Morten Rasmussen
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=20141008135339.GC1788@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mturquette@linaro.org \
--cc=nicolas.pitre@linaro.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).