From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] track CPU utilization
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 11:59:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtB4YJm=8dqf=9_o+jkL2fjShPtwyO-8tDAKCp9pW0Y3jQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180606094409.GA10870@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
On 6 June 2018 at 11:44, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 16:18:09 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> > > So this patch-set tracks the !cfs occupation using the same function,
>> > > which is all good. But what, if instead of using that to compensate the
>> > > OPP selection, we employ that to renormalize the util signal?
>> > >
>> > > If we normalize util against the dynamic (rt_avg affected) cpu_capacity,
>> > > then I think your initial problem goes away. Because while the RT task
>> > > will push the util to .5, it will at the same time push the CPU capacity
>> > > to .5, and renormalized that gives 1.
>> > >
>> > > NOTE: the renorm would then become something like:
>> > > scale_cpu = arch_scale_cpu_capacity() / rt_frac();
>>
>> Should probably be:
>>
>> scale_cpu = atch_scale_cpu_capacity() / (1 - rt_frac())
>>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On IRC I mentioned stopping the CFS clock when preempted, and while that
>> > > would result in fixed numbers, Vincent was right in pointing out the
>> > > numbers will be difficult to interpret, since the meaning will be purely
>> > > CPU local and I'm not sure you can actually fix it again with
>> > > normalization.
>> > >
>> > > Imagine, running a .3 RT task, that would push the (always running) CFS
>> > > down to .7, but because we discard all !cfs time, it actually has 1. If
>> > > we try and normalize that we'll end up with ~1.43, which is of course
>> > > completely broken.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _However_, all that happens for util, also happens for load. So the above
>> > > scenario will also make the CPU appear less loaded than it actually is.
>> >
>> > The load will continue to increase because we track runnable state and
>> > not running for the load
>>
>> Duh yes. So renormalizing it once, like proposed for util would actually
>> do the right thing there too. Would not that allow us to get rid of
>> much of the capacity magic in the load balance code?
>>
>> /me thinks more..
>>
>> Bah, no.. because you don't want this dynamic renormalization part of
>> the sums. So you want to keep it after the fact. :/
>>
>> > As you mentioned, scale_rt_capacity give the remaining capacity for
>> > cfs and it will behave like cfs util_avg now that it uses PELT. So as
>> > long as cfs util_avg < scale_rt_capacity(we probably need a margin)
>> > we keep using dl bandwidth + cfs util_avg + rt util_avg for selecting
>> > OPP because we have remaining spare capacity but if cfs util_avg ==
>> > scale_rt_capacity, we make sure to use max OPP.
>>
>> Good point, when cfs-util < cfs-cap then there is idle time and the util
>> number is 'right', when cfs-util == cfs-cap we're overcommitted and
>> should go max.
>>
>> Since the util and cap values are aligned that should track nicely.
>
> So Vincent proposed to have a margin between cfs util and cfs cap to be
> sure there is a little bit of idle time. This is _exactly_ what the
> overutilized flag in EAS does. That would actually make a lot of sense
> to use that flag in schedutil. The idea is basically to say, if there
> isn't enough idle time on all CPUs, the util signal are kinda wrong, so
> let's not make any decisions (task placement or OPP selection) based on
> that. If overutilized, go to max freq. Does that make sense ?
Yes it's similar to the overutilized except that
- this is done per cpu and whereas overutilization is for the whole system
- the test is done at every freq update and not only during some cfs
event and it uses the last up to date value and not a periodically
updated snapshot of the value
- this is done also without EAS
Then for the margin, it has to be discussed if it is really needed or not
>
> Thanks,
> Quentin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-06 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 99+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-25 13:12 [PATCH v5 00/10] track CPU utilization Vincent Guittot
2018-05-25 13:12 ` [PATCH v5 01/10] sched/pelt: Move pelt related code in a dedicated file Vincent Guittot
2018-05-25 14:26 ` Quentin Perret
2018-05-25 16:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-29 8:21 ` Quentin Perret
2018-05-25 18:04 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-29 14:55 ` Quentin Perret
2018-05-29 15:02 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-29 15:04 ` Quentin Perret
2018-05-25 13:12 ` [PATCH v5 02/10] sched/rt: add rt_rq utilization tracking Vincent Guittot
2018-05-25 15:54 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-29 13:29 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-30 9:32 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-30 10:06 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-30 11:01 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-30 14:39 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-25 13:12 ` [PATCH v5 03/10] cpufreq/schedutil: add rt " Vincent Guittot
2018-05-30 7:03 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-30 8:23 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-30 9:40 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-30 9:53 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-30 16:46 ` Quentin Perret
2018-05-31 8:46 ` Juri Lelli
2018-06-01 16:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-01 17:23 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-06-04 10:17 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-04 15:16 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-25 13:12 ` [PATCH v5 04/10] sched/dl: add dl_rq " Vincent Guittot
2018-05-30 10:50 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-30 11:51 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-25 13:12 ` [PATCH v5 05/10] cpufreq/schedutil: get max utilization Vincent Guittot
2018-05-28 10:12 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-28 14:57 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-28 15:22 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-28 16:34 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-31 10:27 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-31 13:02 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-06-01 13:53 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-06-01 17:45 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-06-04 6:41 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-06-04 7:04 ` Juri Lelli
2018-06-04 7:14 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-06-04 10:12 ` Juri Lelli
2018-06-04 12:35 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-29 5:08 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-29 6:31 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-29 6:48 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-29 9:47 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-29 8:40 ` Quentin Perret
2018-05-29 9:52 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-30 8:37 ` Quentin Perret
2018-05-30 8:51 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-25 13:12 ` [PATCH v5 06/10] sched: remove rt and dl from sched_avg Vincent Guittot
2018-05-25 13:12 ` [PATCH v5 07/10] sched/irq: add irq utilization tracking Vincent Guittot
2018-05-30 15:55 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-05-30 18:45 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-31 16:54 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-06-06 16:06 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-06-07 8:29 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-06-07 8:44 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-06-07 9:06 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-05-25 13:12 ` [PATCH v5 08/10] cpufreq/schedutil: take into account interrupt Vincent Guittot
2018-05-28 10:41 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-28 12:06 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-05-28 12:37 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-25 13:12 ` [PATCH v5 09/10] sched: remove rt_avg code Vincent Guittot
2018-05-25 13:12 ` [PATCH v5 10/10] proc/sched: remove unused sched_time_avg_ms Vincent Guittot
2018-06-04 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 00/10] track CPU utilization Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-04 17:13 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-04 18:08 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-06-05 14:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-05 15:03 ` Juri Lelli
2018-06-05 15:38 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-06-05 22:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-06 9:44 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-06 9:59 ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2018-06-06 10:02 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-06-06 10:12 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-05 8:36 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-06-05 10:57 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-05 11:59 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-06-05 13:12 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-05 13:18 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-06-05 13:52 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-05 13:55 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-06-05 14:09 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-05 14:21 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-05 12:11 ` Juri Lelli
2018-06-05 13:05 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-05 13:15 ` Juri Lelli
2018-06-05 14:01 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-05 14:13 ` Juri Lelli
2018-06-06 13:05 ` Claudio Scordino
2018-06-06 13:20 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-06 13:53 ` Claudio Scordino
2018-06-06 14:10 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-06 21:05 ` luca abeni
2018-06-07 8:25 ` Quentin Perret
2018-06-06 20:53 ` luca abeni
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='CAKfTPtB4YJm=8dqf=9_o+jkL2fjShPtwyO-8tDAKCp9pW0Y3jQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--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 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).