lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default boost value
H Qais,

Sorry for the late reply.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 12:45, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/04/20 14:14, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > I have tried your patch and I don't see any difference compared to
> > previous tests. Let me give you more details of my setup:
> > I create 3 levels of cgroups and usually run the tests in the 4 levels
> > (which includes root). The result above are for the root level
> >
> > But I see a difference at other levels:
> >
> > root level 1 level 2 level 3
> >
> > /w patch uclamp disable 50097 46615 43806 41078
> > tip uclamp enable 48706(-2.78%) 45583(-2.21%) 42851(-2.18%)
> > 40313(-1.86%)
> > /w patch uclamp enable 48882(-2.43%) 45774(-1.80%) 43108(-1.59%)
> > 40667(-1.00%)
> >
> > Whereas tip with uclamp stays around 2% behind tip without uclamp, the
> > diff of uclamp with your patch tends to decrease when we increase the
> > number of level
>
> Thanks for the extra info. Let me try this.
>
> If you can run perf and verify that you see activate/deactivate_task showing up
> as overhead I'd appreciate it. Just to confirm that indeed what we're seeing
> here are symptoms of the same problem Mel is seeing.

I see call to activate_task() for each wakeup of the sched-pipi thread

>
> > Beside this, that's also interesting to notice the ~6% of perf impact
> > between each level for the same image
>
> Interesting indeed.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Qais Yousef

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-09 17:31    [W:0.231 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site