On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:02:33AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:46:51PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > Hi Morten,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:53:31PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Something like teh below..
> > > > >
> > > > > Another thing to ponder; the downside of scaled_delta_w is that its
> > > > > fairly likely delta is small and you loose all bits, whereas the
> > > > > weight
> > > > > is likely to be large can could loose a fwe bits without issue.
> > > >
> > > > That issue applies both to load and util.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is, in fixed point scaling like this, you want to start with the
> > > > > biggest numbers, not the smallest, otherwise you loose too much.
> > > > >
> > > > > The flip side is of course that now you can share a multiplcation.
> > > >
> > > > But if we apply the scaling to the weight instead of time, we would only
> > > > have to apply it once and not three times like it is now? So maybe we
> > > > can end up with almost the same number of multiplications.
> > > >
> > > > We might be loosing bits for low priority task running on cpus at a low
> > > > frequency though.
> > >
> > > Something like the below. We should be saving one multiplication.
> > >
> > > --- 8< ---
> > >
> > > From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmus...@arm.com>
> > > Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:15:40 +0100
> > > Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Scale load/util contribution rather than time
> > >
> > > When updating load/util tracking the time delta might be very small (1)
> > > in many cases, scaling it futher down with frequency and cpu invariance
> > > scaling might cause us to loose precision. Instead of scaling time we
> > > can scale the weight of the task for load and the capacity for
> > > utilization. Both weight (>=15) and capacity should be significantly
> > > bigger in most cases. Low priority tasks might still suffer a bit but
> > > worst should be improved, as weight is at least 15 before invariance
> > > scaling.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmus...@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index 9301291..d5ee72a 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -2519,8 +2519,6 @@ static u32 __compute_runnable_contrib(u64 n)
> > > #error "load tracking assumes 2^10 as unit"
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > -#define cap_scale(v, s) ((v)*(s) >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT)
> > > -
> > > /*
> > > * We can represent the historical contribution to runnable average as
> > > the
> > > * coefficients of a geometric series. To do this we sub-divide our
> > > runnable
> > > @@ -2553,10 +2551,10 @@ 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;
> > > + u64 delta, periods;
> > > u32 contrib;
> > > - unsigned int delta_w, scaled_delta_w, decayed = 0;
> > > - unsigned long scale_freq, scale_cpu;
> > > + unsigned int delta_w, decayed = 0;
> > > + unsigned long scaled_weight = 0, scale_freq, scale_freq_cpu = 0;
> > >
> > > delta = now - sa->last_update_time;
> > > /*
> > > @@ -2577,8 +2575,13 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct
> > > sched_avg *sa,
> > > return 0;
> > > sa->last_update_time = now;
> > >
> > > - scale_freq = arch_scale_freq_capacity(NULL, cpu);
> > > - scale_cpu = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, cpu);
> > > + if (weight || running)
> > > + scale_freq = arch_scale_freq_capacity(NULL, cpu);
> > > + if (weight)
> > > + scaled_weight = weight * scale_freq >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
> > > + if (running)
> > > + scale_freq_cpu = scale_freq * arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, cpu)
> > > + >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
> >
> > maybe below question is stupid :)
> >
> > Why not calculate the scaled_weight depend on cpu's capacity as well?
> > So like: scaled_weight = weight * scale_freq_cpu.
>
> IMHO, we should not scale load by cpu capacity since load isn't really
> comparable to capacity. It is runnable time based (not running time like
> utilization) and the idea is to used it for balancing when when the
> system is fully utilized. When the system is fully utilized we can't say
> anything about the true compute demands of a task, it may get exactly
> the cpu time it needs or it may need much more. Hence it doesn't really
> make sense to scale the demand by the capacity of the cpu. Two busy
> loops on cpus with different cpu capacities should have the load as they
> have the same compute demands.
>
> I mentioned this briefly in the commit message of patch 3 in this
> series.
>
> Makes sense?
Yeah, after your reminding, i recognise load only includes runnable
time on rq but not include running time.
Thanks,
Leo Yan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
