On 23/08/16 15:45, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 23 August 2016 at 16:13, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 03:28:19PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> I still wonder if using a flat util hierarchy is the right solution to
>>> solve this problem with utilization and task group. I have noticed
>>> exact same issues with load that generates weird task placement
>>> decision and i think that we should probably try to solve both wrong
>>> behavior with same mechanism. but this is not possible with flat
>>> hierarchy for load
>>>
>>> Let me take an example.
>>> TA is a always running task on CPU1 in group /root/level1/
>>> TB wakes up on CPU0 and moves TA into group /root/level2/
>>> Even if TA stays on CPU1, runnable_load_avg of CPU1 root cfs rq will become
>>> 0.
>>
>> Because while we migrate the load_avg on /root/level2, we do not
>> propagate the load_avg up the hierarchy?
>
> yes. At now, the load of a cfs_rq and the load of its sched_entity
> that represents it at parent level are disconnected
I guess you say 'disconnected' because cfs_rq and se (w/ cfs_rq eq.
se->my_q) are now independent pelt signals where as before the rewrite
they were 'connected' for load via __update_tg_runnable_avg(),
__update_group_entity_contrib() in __update_entity_load_avg_contrib()
and for utilization via 'se->avg.utilization_avg_contrib =
group_cfs_rq(se)->utilization_load_avg' in
__update_entity_utilization_avg_contrib().
IMHO, there was also this 'connection' between se and cfs_rq (w/
se->cfs_rq eq. cfs_rq) in update_entity_load_avg(, update_cfs_rq = 1)
which guaranteed that the change in the se was immediately visible on
the cfs_rq representing the parent task group.
if (se->on_rq) {
cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg += contrib_delta;
cfs_rq->utilization_load_avg += utilization_delta;
}
I guess, these two things somehow belonged together to achieve this
load/util propagation.
>> And always propagating everyrthing up will indeed also fix the
>> utilization issue.
>>
>> Of course, doing that propagation has its costs..
>
> yes, that's the counterpart
>
>>
>> Didn't you post a patch doing just this a while ago?
>
> My patch was doing that but only for utilization and i have start to
> work on adding the propagation of load as well
>
