linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
	Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/15] sched/core: uclamp: Add CPU's clamp buckets refcounting
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 14:01:36 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpGzxnV8UH4h0O7V03RrecEkJA3JQ3zJTu=b8SHhnOo_mg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190313151535.q5ivsuywvwkewrk5@e110439-lin>

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:15 AM Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 12-Mar 13:52, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > On 2/8/19 11:05 AM, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > +config UCLAMP_BUCKETS_COUNT
> > > +   int "Number of supported utilization clamp buckets"
> > > +   range 5 20
> > > +   default 5
> > > +   depends on UCLAMP_TASK
> > > +   help
> > > +     Defines the number of clamp buckets to use. The range of each bucket
> > > +     will be SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE/UCLAMP_BUCKETS_COUNT. The higher the
> > > +     number of clamp buckets the finer their granularity and the higher
> > > +     the precision of clamping aggregation and tracking at run-time.
> > > +
> > > +     For example, with the default configuration we will have 5 clamp
> > > +     buckets tracking 20% utilization each. A 25% boosted tasks will be
> > > +     refcounted in the [20..39]% bucket and will set the bucket clamp
> > > +     effective value to 25%.
> > > +     If a second 30% boosted task should be co-scheduled on the same CPU,
> > > +     that task will be refcounted in the same bucket of the first task and
> > > +     it will boost the bucket clamp effective value to 30%.
> > > +     The clamp effective value of a bucket is reset to its nominal value
> > > +     (20% in the example above) when there are anymore tasks refcounted in
> >
> > this sounds weird.
>
> Why ?

Should probably be "when there are no more tasks refcounted"

> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > +static inline unsigned int uclamp_bucket_value(unsigned int clamp_value)
> > > +{
> > > +   return UCLAMP_BUCKET_DELTA * uclamp_bucket_id(clamp_value);
> > > +}
> >
> > Soemthing like uclamp_bucket_nominal_value() should be clearer.
>
> Maybe... can update it in v8
>

uclamp_bucket_base_value is a little shorter, just to consider :)

> > > +static inline void uclamp_rq_update(struct rq *rq, unsigned int clamp_id)
> > > +{
> > > +   struct uclamp_bucket *bucket = rq->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket;
> > > +   unsigned int max_value = uclamp_none(clamp_id);
> > > +   unsigned int bucket_id;
> >
> > unsigned int bucket_id = UCLAMP_BUCKETS;
> >
> > > +
> > > +   /*
> > > +    * Both min and max clamps are MAX aggregated, thus the topmost
> > > +    * bucket with some tasks defines the rq's clamp value.
> > > +    */
> > > +   bucket_id = UCLAMP_BUCKETS;
> >
> > to get rid of this line?
>
> I put it on a different line as a justfication for the loop variable
> initialization described in the comment above.
>
> >
> > > +   do {
> > > +           --bucket_id;
> > > +           if (!rq->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket[bucket_id].tasks)
> >
> > if (!bucket[bucket_id].tasks)
>
> Right... that's some leftover from the last refactoring!
>
> [...]
>
> > > + * within each bucket the exact "requested" clamp value whenever all tasks
> > > + * RUNNABLE in that bucket require the same clamp.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline void uclamp_rq_inc_id(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq,
> > > +                               unsigned int clamp_id)
> > > +{
> > > +   unsigned int bucket_id = p->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket_id;
> > > +   unsigned int rq_clamp, bkt_clamp, tsk_clamp;
> >
> > Wouldn't it be easier to have a pointer to the task's and rq's uclamp
> > structure as well to the bucket?
> >
> > -       unsigned int bucket_id = p->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket_id;
> > +       struct uclamp_se *uc_se = &p->uclamp[clamp_id];
> > +       struct uclamp_rq *uc_rq = &rq->uclamp[clamp_id];
> > +       struct uclamp_bucket *bucket = &uc_rq->bucket[uc_se->bucket_id];
>
> I think I went back/forth a couple of times in using pointer or the
> extended version, which both have pros and cons.
>
> I personally prefer the pointers as you suggest but I've got the
> impression in the past that since everybody cleared "basic C trainings"
> it's not so difficult to read the code above too.
>
> > The code in uclamp_rq_inc_id() and uclamp_rq_dec_id() for example becomes
> > much more readable.
>
> Agree... let's try to switch once again in v8 and see ;)
>
> > [...]
> >
> > >   struct sched_class {
> > >     const struct sched_class *next;
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK
> > > +   int uclamp_enabled;
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > >     void (*enqueue_task) (struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags);
> > >     void (*dequeue_task) (struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags);
> > > -   void (*yield_task)   (struct rq *rq);
> > > -   bool (*yield_to_task)(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, bool preempt);
> > >     void (*check_preempt_curr)(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags);
> > > @@ -1685,7 +1734,6 @@ struct sched_class {
> > >     void (*set_curr_task)(struct rq *rq);
> > >     void (*task_tick)(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int queued);
> > >     void (*task_fork)(struct task_struct *p);
> > > -   void (*task_dead)(struct task_struct *p);
> > >     /*
> > >      * The switched_from() call is allowed to drop rq->lock, therefore we
> > > @@ -1702,12 +1750,17 @@ struct sched_class {
> > >     void (*update_curr)(struct rq *rq);
> > > +   void (*yield_task)   (struct rq *rq);
> > > +   bool (*yield_to_task)(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, bool preempt);
> > > +
> > >   #define TASK_SET_GROUP            0
> > >   #define TASK_MOVE_GROUP           1
> > >   #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> > >     void (*task_change_group)(struct task_struct *p, int type);
> > >   #endif
> > > +
> > > +   void (*task_dead)(struct task_struct *p);
> >
> > Why do you move yield_task, yield_to_task and task_dead here?
>
> Since I'm adding a new field at the beginning of the struct, which is
> used at enqueue/dequeue time, this is to ensure that all the
> callbacks used in these paths are grouped together and don't fall
> across a cache line... but yes, that's supposed to be a
> micro-optimization which I can skip in this patch.
>
> --
> #include <best/regards.h>
>
> Patrick Bellasi

  reply	other threads:[~2019-03-13 21:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-08 10:05 [PATCH v7 00/15] Add utilization clamping support Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 01/15] sched/core: uclamp: Add CPU's clamp buckets refcounting Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-12 12:52   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-03-13 15:15     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 21:01       ` Suren Baghdasaryan [this message]
2019-03-14 14:54         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-14 15:00       ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-12 15:20   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-12 15:50     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13  8:19       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 11:37         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 13:40   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 16:12     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 17:22       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 18:22         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 19:48       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-14 12:13         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-14 13:32           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-14 15:07             ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-14 19:18               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 13:52   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 15:59     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 19:30       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-14 11:03         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-14 13:27           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 19:39       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-14 11:18         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 21:23     ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-03-14 12:43       ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 14:06   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 15:28     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 14:09   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 15:23     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 19:46       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 21:08         ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-03-14 12:22           ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-14 11:45         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 21:32   ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-03-14 14:46     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-14 15:29       ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-03-14 15:40         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-14 16:39           ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 02/15] sched/core: uclamp: Enforce last task UCLAMP_MAX Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 14:10   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 16:20     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 17:29       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 18:29         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 14:12   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 16:16     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-14  0:29       ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-03-14 17:06         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 03/15] sched/core: uclamp: Add system default clamps Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 14:32   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 17:09     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 19:58       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 20:10       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-15 13:41         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 20:13   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-13 20:18   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-18 12:18     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-18 13:10       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-18 14:21         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-18 14:29           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 04/15] sched/core: Allow sched_setattr() to use the current policy Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 05/15] sched/core: uclamp: Extend sched_setattr() to support utilization clamping Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 06/15] sched/core: uclamp: Reset uclamp values on RESET_ON_FORK Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-13 20:52   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-18 12:58     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 07/15] sched/core: uclamp: Set default clamps for RT tasks Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 08/15] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: Add clamps for FAIR and " Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 09/15] sched/core: uclamp: Add uclamp_util_with() Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 10/15] sched/fair: uclamp: Add uclamp support to energy_compute() Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-06 17:21   ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-18 15:19     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 11/15] sched/core: uclamp: Extend CPU's cgroup controller Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-14 15:48   ` Tejun Heo
2019-03-19 10:00     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 12/15] sched/core: uclamp: Propagate parent clamps Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-14 16:17   ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-03-18 16:54     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-03-18 16:58       ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 13/15] sched/core: uclamp: Propagate system defaults to root group Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 14/15] sched/core: uclamp: Use TG's clamps to restrict TASK's clamps Patrick Bellasi
2019-02-08 10:05 ` [PATCH v7 15/15] sched/core: uclamp: Update CPU's refcount on TG's clamp changes Patrick Bellasi

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='CAJuCfpGzxnV8UH4h0O7V03RrecEkJA3JQ3zJTu=b8SHhnOo_mg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=smuckle@google.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=tkjos@google.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v7 01/15] sched/core: uclamp: Add CPU'\''s clamp buckets refcounting' \
    /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

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).