Message-ID: <20180206183315.GG5739@e110439-lin>
Date:   Tue, 6 Feb 2018 18:33:15 +0000
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] sched/fair: add util_est on top of PELT

On 06-Feb 16:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> Mostly nice, I almost applied, except too many nits below.

:)

Thanks for the really fast still useful review!

> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 02:41:29PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 7b6535987500..118f49c39b60 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -5193,6 +5193,20 @@ static inline void hrtick_update(struct rq *rq)
> >  }
> >  #endif
> >  
> > +static inline unsigned long task_util(struct task_struct *p);
> > +static inline unsigned long _task_util_est(struct task_struct *p);
> 
> What's with the leading underscore? I don't see one without it.

Good point, I was actually expecting this question and I should have
added it to the cover letter, sorry.

The reasoning was: the task's estimated utilization is defined as the
max between PELT and the "estimation". Where "estimation" is
the max between EWMA and the last ENQUEUED utilization.

Thus I was envisioning these two calls:

   _task_util_est := max(EWMA, ENQUEUED)
    task_util_est := max(util_avg, _task_util_est)

but since now we have clients only for the first API, I've not added
the second one. Still I would prefer to keep the "_" to make it clear
that's and util_est's internal signal, not the actual task's estimated
utilization.

Does it make sense?

Do you prefer I just remove the "_" and we will refactor it once we
should add a customer for the proper task's util_est?

> > +
> > +static inline void util_est_enqueue(struct task_struct *p)
> 
> Also pass @rq from enqueue_task_fair() ? I see no point in computing
> task_rq(p) if we already have the value around.

You right, that seems to make sense.
I look into it and update if really sane.

> 
> > +{
> > +	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = &task_rq(p)->cfs;
> > +
> > +	if (!sched_feat(UTIL_EST))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	/* Update root cfs_rq's estimated utilization */
> > +	cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued += _task_util_est(p);
> > +}
> 
> 
> > +/*
> > + * Check if the specified (signed) value is within a specified margin,
> > + * based on the observation that:
> > + *     abs(x) < y := (unsigned)(x + y - 1) < (2 * y - 1)
> 
>     * Note: this only works when x+y < INT_MAX.

+1

> 
> > + */
> > +static inline bool within_margin(long value, unsigned int margin)
> 
> This mixing of long and int is dodgy, do we want to consistently use int
> here?

Right, perhaps better "unsigned int" for both params, isn't?


> > +{
> > +	return ((unsigned int)(value + margin - 1) < (2 * margin - 1));
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void util_est_dequeue(struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > +{
> > +	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = &task_rq(p)->cfs;
> > +	unsigned long util_last;
> > +	long last_ewma_diff;
> > +	unsigned long ewma;
> > +	long util_est = 0;
> 
> Why long?

Right, because I've did not spot the possibility to update it when I
changed the util_est type... anyway, I'll check better, but likely
we don't need a long range.

> > +
> > +	if (!sched_feat(UTIL_EST))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Update root cfs_rq's estimated utilization
> > +	 *
> > +	 * If *p is the last task then the root cfs_rq's estimated utilization
> > +	 * of a CPU is 0 by definition.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (cfs_rq->nr_running) {
> > +		util_est  = READ_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued);
> 
> Because util_est.enqueued is of type 'unsigned int'.

Indeed...

> 
> > +		util_est -= min_t(long, util_est, _task_util_est(p));
> > +	}
> > +	WRITE_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued, util_est);
> 
> long to int truncate

right!

We have util_avg related signals which are all long based, but in the
scope of "utilization" tracking, and specifically for "util_est" signals,
int should have a sufficient range.
 
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Skip update of task's estimated utilization when the task has not
> > +	 * yet completed an activation, e.g. being migrated.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!(flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	ewma = READ_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_est.ewma);
> > +	util_last = task_util(p);
> 
> Again, all kinds of long, while the ewma type itself is of 'unsigned
> int'.

Yes, for utilization should be enough...

> 
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Skip update of task's estimated utilization when its EWMA is
> > +	 * already ~1% close to its last activation value.
> > +	 */
> > +	last_ewma_diff = util_last - ewma;
> > +	if (within_margin(last_ewma_diff, (SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE / 100)))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Update Task's estimated utilization
> > +	 *
> > +	 * When *p completes an activation we can consolidate another sample
> > +	 * about the task size. This is done by storing the last PELT value
> > +	 * for this task and using this value to load another sample in the
> > +	 * exponential weighted moving average:
> > +	 *
> > +	 *  ewma(t) = w *  task_util(p) + (1-w) * ewma(t-1)
> > +	 *          = w *  task_util(p) +         ewma(t-1)  - w * ewma(t-1)
> > +	 *          = w * (task_util(p) -         ewma(t-1)) +     ewma(t-1)
> > +	 *          = w * (      last_ewma_diff            ) +     ewma(t-1)
> > +	 *          = w * (last_ewma_diff  +  ewma(t-1) / w)
> > +	 *
> > +	 * Where 'w' is the weight of new samples, which is configured to be
> > +	 * 0.25, thus making w=1/4 ( >>= UTIL_EST_WEIGHT_SHIFT)
> > +	 */
> > +	ewma   = last_ewma_diff + (ewma << UTIL_EST_WEIGHT_SHIFT);
> > +	ewma >>= UTIL_EST_WEIGHT_SHIFT;
> > +
> > +	WRITE_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_est.ewma, ewma);
> > +	WRITE_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_est.enqueued, util_last);
> 
> Two stores to that word... can we fix that nicely?

Good point, the single word comes from the goal to fit into the same
cache line of sched_avg.

I think we can fix it by having a struct util_est on stack and then it
should be possible to update the above code to do:

   ue = READ_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_est)
   ... magic code on ue.{enqueued, ewma} ...
   WRITE_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_est, ue);

That should be safe on 32bit builds too, right?

> > +}
> 
> > +static inline unsigned long _task_util_est(struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > +	return max(p->se.avg.util_est.ewma, p->se.avg.util_est.enqueued);
> > +}
> 
> Aside from the underscore thing I already noted, why is this here and
> not where the fwd declaration is?

Because here is where we have already the definitions of
cpu_util{_est}() and task_util()... that's to try to keep things
together. Does it make sense?

> > +/*
> > + * UtilEstimation. Use estimated CPU utilization.
> > + */
> > +SCHED_FEAT(UTIL_EST, false)
> 
> Since you couldn't measure it, do we wants it true?

I'm just a single tester so far, I would be more confident once
someone volunteer to turn this on to give a better coverage.

Moreover, a small out-of-tree patch enabling it for mobile devices is
more then acceptable for the time being ;)

Finally, we are also considering to post a follow-up to enable it via
KConfig along with a PELT half-life tunable, i.e using a 16ms instead
of the default 32ms. Do you think this is something can fly mainline?

Cheers Patrick

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

Powered by blists - more mailing lists