[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBLZ4Fm5cPiFAdF3N16LaqE+SsFkbi3USWYL0iSK9sDdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:06:30 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp-developer] [sched/fair] 4e5160766f: +149%
ftq.noise.50% regression
On 4 January 2017 at 04:08, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> writes:
>
>>>
>>> Vincent, like we discussed in September last year, the proper fix would
>>> probably be a cfs-rq->nr_attached which IMHO is not doable w/o being an
>>> atomic because of migrate_task_rq_fair()->remove_entity_load_avg() not
>>> holding the rq lock.
>>
>> I remember the discussion and even if I agree that a large number of taskgroup
>> increases the number of loop in update_blocked_averages() and as a result the
>> time spent in the update, I don't think that this is the root cause of
>> this regression because the patch "sched/fair: Propagate asynchrous detach"
>> doesn't add more loops to update_blocked_averages but it adds more thing to do
>> per loop.
>>
>> Then, I think I'm still too conservative in the condition for calling
>> update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0). This call has been added to
>> propagate gcfs_rq->propagate_avg flag to parent so we don't need to call it
>> even if load_avg is not null but only when propagate_avg flag is set. The
>> patch below should improve thing compare to the previous version because
>> it will call update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0) only if an asynchrounous
>> detach happened (propagate_avg is set).
>>
>> Ying, could you test the patch below instead of the previous one ?
>>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++---
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 6559d19..a4f5c35 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -6915,6 +6915,7 @@ static void update_blocked_averages(int cpu)
>> {
>> struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>> struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
>> + struct sched_entity *se;
>> unsigned long flags;
>>
>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
>> @@ -6932,9 +6933,10 @@ static void update_blocked_averages(int cpu)
>> if (update_cfs_rq_load_avg(cfs_rq_clock_task(cfs_rq), cfs_rq, true))
>> update_tg_load_avg(cfs_rq, 0);
>>
>> - /* Propagate pending load changes to the parent */
>> - if (cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu])
>> - update_load_avg(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu], 0);
>> + /* Propagate pending load changes to the parent if any */
>> + se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu];
>> + if (se && cfs_rq->propagate_avg)
>> + update_load_avg(se, 0);
>> }
>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
>> }
>
> Here is the test result,
>
> =========================================================================================
> compiler/cpufreq_governor/freq/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/samples/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> gcc-6/powersave/20/x86_64-rhel-7.2/100%/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/6000ss/lkp-hsw-d01/cache/ftq
>
> commit:
> 4e5160766fcc9f41bbd38bac11f92dce993644aa: first bad commit
> 09a43ace1f986b003c118fdf6ddf1fd685692d49: parent of first bad commit
> b524060933c546fd2410c5a09360ba23a0fef846: with fix patch above
>
> 4e5160766fcc9f41 09a43ace1f986b003c118fdf6d b524060933c546fd2410c5a093
> ---------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \ | \
> 3463 ± 10% -61.4% 1335 ± 17% -3.0% 3359 ± 2% ftq.noise.50%
> 1116 ± 23% -73.7% 293.90 ± 30% -23.8% 850.69 ± 17% ftq.noise.75%
To be honest, I was expecting at least the same level of improvement
as the previous patch if not better but i was not expecting worse
results
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists