linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
To: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"cgroups@vger.kernel.org" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] introduce cpu.headroom knob to cpu controller
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 16:27:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <D9376488-F290-4917-9124-292AA649948C@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521134730.GA12346@blackbody.suse.cz>

Hi Michal,

> On May 21, 2019, at 6:47 AM, Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Song.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 07:43:35PM +0000, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> wrote:
>> The load level above is measured as requests-per-second. 
>> 
>> When there is no side workload, the system has about 45% busy CPU with 
>> load level of 1.0; and about 75% busy CPU at load level of 1.5. 
>> 
>> The saturation starts before the system hitting 100% utilization. This is
>> true for many different resources: ALUs in SMT systems, cache lines, 
>> memory bandwidths, etc. 
> I have read through the thread continuation and it appears to me there
> is some misunderstanding on the latency metric (scheduler latency <=
> your latency <= request wall time?).

We define "your latency" == "request wall time" > "scheduler latency". 

The application is a web server. It works as:

    for a few iterations:
        (a) request data from cache/db
        (b) wait for data
        (c) data is ready, wait to be scheduled
        (d) render web page based on data

We need to do a few iterations because we need some data to decide what
other data to fetch. 

The overall latency (or wall latency) contains: 

   (1) cpu time, which is (a) and (d) in the loop above;
   (2) time waiting for data, which is (b);
   (3) schedule latency, time between data is ready and the thread wakes
       up, which is (c);

In our experiment, we can measure (1) and "(1)+(2)+(3)". For data in the
following table. "cpu time" is (1), "wall time" is (1)+(2)+(3), and 
"wall - cpu" is "(2)+(3)". We assume (2) doesn't change, so changes in 
"wall - cpu" is mostly due to changes in (3). 

side job | cpu.headroom |  cpu-idle | wall time | cpu time | wall - cpu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 none    |     n/a      |    42.4%  |   1.00    |   0.31   |   0.69
ffmpeg   |       0      |    10.8%  |   1.17    |   0.38   |   0.79
ffmpeg   |     25%      |    22.8%  |   1.08    |   0.35   |   0.73


Does this make sense?

Thanks,
Song


  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-21 16:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-08 21:45 [PATCH 0/7] introduce cpu.headroom knob to cpu controller Song Liu
2019-04-08 21:45 ` [PATCH 1/7] sched: refactor tg_set_cfs_bandwidth() Song Liu
2019-04-08 21:45 ` [PATCH 2/7] cgroup: introduce hook css_has_tasks_changed Song Liu
2019-04-08 21:45 ` [PATCH 3/7] cgroup: introduce cgroup_parse_percentage Song Liu
2019-04-08 21:45 ` [PATCH 4/7] sched, cgroup: add entry cpu.headroom Song Liu
2019-04-08 21:45 ` [PATCH 5/7] sched/fair: global idleness counter for cpu.headroom Song Liu
2019-04-08 21:45 ` [PATCH 6/7] sched/fair: throttle task runtime based on cpu.headroom Song Liu
2019-04-08 21:45 ` [PATCH 7/7] Documentation: cgroup-v2: add information for cpu.headroom Song Liu
2019-04-10 11:59 ` [PATCH 0/7] introduce cpu.headroom knob to cpu controller Morten Rasmussen
2019-04-10 19:43   ` Song Liu
2019-04-17 12:56     ` Vincent Guittot
2019-04-22 23:22       ` Song Liu
2019-04-28 19:47         ` Song Liu
2019-04-29 12:24           ` Vincent Guittot
2019-04-30  6:10             ` Song Liu
2019-04-30 16:20               ` Vincent Guittot
2019-04-30 16:54                 ` Song Liu
2019-05-10 18:22                   ` Song Liu
2019-05-14 20:58                     ` Song Liu
2019-05-15 10:18                       ` Vincent Guittot
2019-05-15 15:42                         ` Song Liu
2019-05-21 13:47     ` Michal Koutný
2019-05-21 16:27       ` Song Liu [this message]
2019-06-26  8:26         ` Michal Koutný
2019-06-26 15:56           ` Song Liu
2019-04-15 16:48 ` Song Liu

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=D9376488-F290-4917-9124-292AA649948C@fb.com \
    --to=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --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).