[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190701085350.y5wrnatm3tscifkn@e110439-lin>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 09:53:50 +0100
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Douglas Raillard <douglas.raillard@....com>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: util_est: fast ramp-up EWMA on utilization
increases
On 30-Jun 10:43, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 16:10, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com> wrote:
> > On 28-Jun 15:51, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 14:38, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:08:14AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > > > On 26-Jun 13:40, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Vincent,
[...]
> > > AFAICT, it's not related to the time-scaling
> > >
> > > In fact the big 1st activation happens because task runs at low OPP
> > > and hasn't enough time to finish its running phase before the time to
> > > begin the next one happens. This means that the task will run several
> > > computations phase in one go which is no more a 75% task.
> >
> > But in that case, running multiple activations back to back, should we
> > not expect the util_avg to exceed the 75% mark?
>
> But task starts with a very low value and Pelt needs time to ramp up.
Of course...
[...]
> > > Once cpu reaches a high enough OPP that enable to have sleep phase
> > > between each running phases, the task load tracking comes back to the
> > > normal slope increase (the one that would have happen if task would
> > > have jump from 5% to 75% but already running at max OPP)
> >
> >
> > Indeed, I can see from the plots a change in slope. But there is also
> > that big drop after the first big activation: 375 units in 1.1ms.
> >
> > Is that expected? I guess yes, since we fix the clock_pelt with the
> > lost_idle_time.
... but, I guess Peter was mainly asking about the point above: is
that "big" drop after the first activation related to time-scaling or
not?
Cheers,
Patrick
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists