[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181031184527.GA3178@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 19:45:27 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: util_est: fix cpu_util_wake for execl
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:09:47PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> Let's fix this by ensuring to always discount the task estimated
> utilization from the CPU's estimated utilization when the task is also
> the current one. The same benchmark of the bug report, executed on a
> dual socket 40 CPUs Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz machine,
> reports these "Execl Throughput" figures (higher the better):
Before this we have:
/* Discount task's blocked util from CPU's util */
util -= min_t(unsigned int, util, task_util(p));
at the very least that comment is now inaccurate, since @p might not be
blocked.
> @@ -6258,8 +6267,17 @@ static unsigned long cpu_util_wake(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
> * covered by the following code when estimated utilization is
> * enabled.
> */
> - if (sched_feat(UTIL_EST))
> - util = max(util, READ_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued));
> + if (sched_feat(UTIL_EST)) {
> + unsigned int estimated =
> + READ_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued);
> +
> + if (unlikely(current == p || task_on_rq_queued(p))) {
I'm confused by the need for 'current == p', afaict task_on_rq_queued(p)
is sufficient -- we've already established task_cpu(p) == cpu earlier.
> + estimated -= min_t(unsigned int, estimated,
> + (_task_util_est(p) | UTIL_AVG_UNCHANGED));
> + }
> +
> + util = max(util, estimated);
> + }
Also, I think it is about time we find a suitable name for:
#define xxx(_var, _val) do { \
typeof(_var) var = (_var); \
typeof(_var) val = (_val); \
typeof(_var) res = var - val; \
if (res > var) \
res = 0; \
(_var) = res; \
} while (0)
Which is basically sub_positive() but without the READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE
stuff. We do that:
var -= min_t(typeof(var), var, val);
pattern _all_ over.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists