Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Jun 2015 07:05:54 +0800 | From | Yuyang Du <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] sched: Rewrite runnable load and utilization average tracking |
| |
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:00:38PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > However, update_cfs_rq_load_avg() only updates cfs_rq->avg, the change > won't be contributed or aggregated to cfs_rq's parent in the > for_each_leaf_cfs_rq loop, therefore that's actually not a bottom-up > update. > > To fix this, I think we can add a update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq) after > update_cfs_rq_load_avg(). Like: > > for_each_leaf_cfs_rq(rq, cfs_rq) { > - /* > - * Note: We may want to consider periodically releasing > - * rq->lock about these updates so that creating many task > - * groups does not result in continually extending hold time. > - */ > - __update_blocked_averages_cpu(cfs_rq->tg, rq->cpu); > + /* throttled entities do not contribute to load */ > + if (throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq)) > + continue; > + > + update_cfs_rq_load_avg(cfs_rq_clock_task(cfs_rq), cfs_rq); > + update_cfs_share(cfs_rq); > } > > However, I think update_cfs_share isn't cheap, because it may do a > bottom-up update once called. So how about just update the root cfs_rq? > Like: > > - /* > - * Iterates the task_group tree in a bottom up fashion, see > - * list_add_leaf_cfs_rq() for details. > - */ > - for_each_leaf_cfs_rq(rq, cfs_rq) { > - /* > - * Note: We may want to consider periodically releasing > - * rq->lock about these updates so that creating many task > - * groups does not result in continually extending hold time. > - */ > - __update_blocked_averages_cpu(cfs_rq->tg, rq->cpu); > - } > + update_cfs_rq_load_avg(rq_clock_task(rq), rq->cfs_rq);
Hi Boqun,
Did I get you right:
This rewrite patch does not NEED to aggregate entity's load to cfs_rq, but rather directly update the cfs_rq's load (both runnable and blocked), so there is NO NEED to iterate all of the cfs_rqs.
So simply updating the top cfs_rq is already equivalent to the stock.
It is better if we iterate the cfs_rq to update the actually weight (update_cfs_share), because the weight may have already changed, which would in turn change the load. But update_cfs_share is not cheap.
Right?
Thanks, Yuyang
| |