[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180306185851.GG25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 19:58:51 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
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 v5 1/4] sched/fair: add util_est on top of PELT
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 05:01:50PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> +static inline void util_est_enqueue(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> + struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + unsigned int enqueued;
> +
> + if (!sched_feat(UTIL_EST))
> + return;
> +
> + /* Update root cfs_rq's estimated utilization */
> + enqueued = READ_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued);
> + enqueued += _task_util_est(p);
> + WRITE_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued, enqueued);
> +}
> +static inline void util_est_dequeue(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> + struct task_struct *p,
> + bool task_sleep)
> +{
> + long last_ewma_diff;
> + struct util_est ue;
> +
> + 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.
> + */
> + ue.enqueued = 0;
> + if (cfs_rq->nr_running) {
> + ue.enqueued = READ_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued);
> + ue.enqueued -= min_t(unsigned int, ue.enqueued,
> + _task_util_est(p));
> + }
> + WRITE_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued, ue.enqueued);
It appears to me this isn't a stable situation and completely relies on
the !nr_running case to recalibrate. If we ensure that doesn't happen
for a significant while the sum can run-away, right?
Should we put a max in enqueue to avoid this?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists