On 12 April 2016 at 23:09, Yuyang Du <yuyang...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 01:56:45PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Le Tuesday 12 Apr 2016 à 03:41:41 (+0800), Yuyang Du a écrit :
> > > Hi Vincent,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:08:04AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > > @@ -2704,11 +2694,14 @@ static __always_inline int
> > > > > __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
> > > > > unsigned long weight, int running, struct cfs_rq
> > > > > *cfs_rq)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - u64 delta, scaled_delta, periods;
> > > > > - u32 contrib;
> > > > > - unsigned int delta_w, scaled_delta_w, decayed = 0;
> > > > > + u64 delta;
> > > > > + u32 contrib, periods;
> > > > > unsigned long scale_freq, scale_cpu;
> > > > >
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * now rolls down to a period boundary
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + now = now && (u64)(~0xFFFFF);
> > > > > delta = now - sa->last_update_time;
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * This should only happen when time goes backwards, which it
> > > > > @@ -2720,89 +2713,56 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct
> > > > > sched_avg *sa,
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > - * Use 1024ns as the unit of measurement since it's a
> > > > > reasonable
> > > > > - * approximation of 1us and fast to compute.
> > > > > + * Use 1024*1024ns as an approximation of 1ms period, pretty
> > > > > close.
> > > > > */
> > > > > - delta >>= 10;
> > > > > - if (!delta)
> > > > > + periods = delta >> 20;
> > > > > + if (!periods)
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > sa->last_update_time = now;
> > > >
> > > > The optimization looks quite interesting but I see one potential issue
> > > > with migration as we will lose the part of the ongoing period that is
> > > > now not saved anymore. This lost part can be quite significant for a
> > > > short task that ping pongs between CPUs.
> > >
> > > Yes, basically, it is we lose precision (~1ms scale in contrast with ~1us
> > > scale).
> >
> > But with a HZ set to 1000 and a sched-slice in the same range, having a
> > precision
> > of 1ms instead of 1us makes the precision of load tracking of short task
> > quite
> > random IMHO.
> >
> > you can keep recording this partial period without using it in the load
> > tracking.
> > Something like below keep precision without sacrifying the optimization.
>
> The residue is accumulated and rolled over to next update every time. But its
> state is runnable/not-runnable, or running/not-running?
yes, this need to be sorted
>
>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 68273e8..b234169 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -674,6 +674,12 @@ void init_entity_runnable_average(struct sched_entity
> > *se)
> > struct sched_avg *sa = &se->avg;
> >
> > sa->last_update_time = 0;
> > + /*
> > + * sched_avg's period_contrib should be strictly less then 1024 *
> > 1024, so
> > + * we give it 1023 * 1024 to make sure it is almost a period
> > (1024us), and
> > + * will definitely be updated (after enqueue).
> > + */
> > + sa->period_contrib = 1023*1024;
> > sa->load_avg = scale_load_down(se->load.weight);
> > sa->load_sum = sa->load_avg * LOAD_AVG_MAX;
> > /*
> > @@ -2698,10 +2704,6 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg
> > *sa,
> > u32 contrib, periods;
> > unsigned long scale_freq, scale_cpu;
> >
> > - /*
> > - * now rolls down to a period boundary
> > - */
> > - now = now && (u64)(~0xFFFFF);
> > delta = now - sa->last_update_time;
> > /*
> > * This should only happen when time goes backwards, which it
> > @@ -2712,6 +2714,9 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg
> > *sa,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > + /* Add how much left for the current period */
> > + delta += sa->period_contrib;
> > +
> > /*
> > * Use 1024*1024ns as an approximation of 1ms period, pretty close.
> > */
> > @@ -2720,6 +2725,9 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg
> > *sa,
> > return 0;
> > sa->last_update_time = now;
> >
> > + /* Get how much left for the next period */
> > + sa->period_contrib = delta & (u64)(0xFFFFF);
> > +
> > scale_freq = arch_scale_freq_capacity(NULL, cpu);
> > scale_cpu = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, cpu);
> >
> > > But as I wrote, we may either lose a sub-1ms, or gain a sub-1ms,
> > > statistically,
> > > they should even out, given the load/util updates are quite a large
> > > number of
> > > samples, and we do want a lot of samples for the metrics, this is the
> > > point of
> > > the entire average thing. Plus, as you also said, the incomplete current
> > > period
> > > also plays a (somewhat) negative role here.
> > >
> > > In addition, excluding the flat hierarchical util patch, we gain quite
> > > some
> > > efficiency.
