lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/1] sched/pelt: Change PELT halflife at runtime
From
On 10/11/2022 18:51, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:59:01PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 10/11/2022 14:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:16:26PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>>> On 07/11/2022 14:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 03:41:47PM +0100, Kajetan Puchalski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -2956,13 +2958,26 @@ static inline unsigned long cpu_util_dl(struct rq *rq)
>>>>> */
>>>>> static inline unsigned long cpu_util_cfs(int cpu)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>>>>> struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
>>>>> unsigned long util;
>>>>>
>>>>> - cfs_rq = &cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs;
>>>>> + cfs_rq = &rq->cfs;
>>>>> util = READ_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_avg);
>>>>>
>>>>> if (sched_feat(UTIL_EST)) {
>>>>> + if (sched_feat(UTIL_EST_FASTER)) {
>>>>> + struct task_struct *curr;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>>> + curr = rcu_dereference(rq->curr);
>>>>> + if (likely(curr->sched_class == &fair_sched_class)) {
>>>>> + u64 runtime = curr->se.sum_exec_runtime - curr->se.exec_start;
>>>>
>>>> Don't we and up with gigantic runtime numbers here?
>>>>
>>>> oot@juno:~# cat /proc/1676/task/1676/schedstat
>>>> 36946300 1150620 11
>>>> root@juno:~# cat /proc/1676/task/1676/sched
>>>> rt-app (1676, #threads: 2)
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> se.exec_start : 77766.964240 <- !
>>>> se.vruntime : 563.587883
>>>> e.sum_exec_runtime : 36.946300 <- !
>>>> se.nr_migrations : 0
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I expect cpu_util_cfs() to be ~1024 almost all the time now.
>>>
>>> Duh, obviously I meant to measure the runtime of the current activation
>>> and messed up.
>>>
>>> We don't appear to have the right information to compute this atm :/
>>
>> This would be:
>>
>> u64 now = rq_clock_task(rq);
>> u64 runtime = now - curr->se.exec_start;
>>
>> but we don't hold the rq lock so we can't get `now`?
>
> Not quite the same; that's the time since we got on-cpu last, but that's
> not the same as the runtime of this activation (it is when you discount
> preemption).


----|----|----|----|----|----|--->
a s1 p1 s2 p2 d

a ... activate_task() -> enqueue_task()

s ... set_next_entity()

p ... put_prev_entity()

d ... deactivate_task() -> dequeue_task()

By `runtime of the activation` you refer to `curr->sum_exec_runtime -
time(a)` ? And the latter we don't have?

And `runtime = curr->se.sum_exec_runtime - curr->se.prev_sum_exec_run`
is only covering the time since we got onto the cpu, right?

With a missing `runtime >>= 10` (from __update_load_sum()) and using
`runtime = curr->se.sum_exec_runtime - curr->se.prev_sum_exec_runtime`
for a 1 task-workload (so no preemption) with factor 2 or 4 I get at
least close to the original rq->cfs.avg.util_avg and util_est.enqueued
signals (cells (5)-(8) in the notebook below).

https://nbviewer.org/github/deggeman/lisa/blob/ipynbs/ipynb/scratchpad/UTIL_EST_FASTER.ipynb?flush_cache=true

----

set_next_entity()
update_stats_curr_start()
se->exec_start = rq_clock_task()

cfs_rq->curr = se (1)

se->prev_sum_exec_runtime = se->sum_exec_runtime (2)

update_curr()

now = rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq))
delta_exec = now - curr->exec_start (3)
curr->exec_start = now
curr->sum_exec_runtime += delta_exec; (4)

put_prev_entity()

cfs_rq->curr = NULL (5)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-30 19:18    [W:0.066 / U:0.928 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site