[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211015182950.GM174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 20:29:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] sched/fair: Wait before decaying
max_newidle_lb_cost
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 08:02:01PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 19:41, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 02:46:53PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > Decay max_newidle_lb_cost only when it has not been updated for a while
> > > and ensure to not decay a recently changed value.
> >
> > I was more thinking something long these lines; ofcourse, no idea how
> > well it actually behaves.
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> > @@ -98,7 +98,6 @@ struct sched_domain {
> >
> > /* idle_balance() stats */
> > u64 max_newidle_lb_cost;
> > - unsigned long next_decay_max_lb_cost;
> >
> > u64 avg_scan_cost; /* select_idle_sibling */
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -10241,6 +10241,17 @@ void update_max_interval(void)
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > + * Asymmetric IIR filter, 1/4th down, 3/4th up.
> > + */
> > +static void update_newidle_cost(u64 *cost, u64 new)
> > +{
> > + s64 diff = new - *cost;
> > + if (diff > 0)
> > + diff *= 3;
> > + *cost += diff / 4;
> > +}
>
> I tried to use something similar which was based on update_avg() but
> there were some performance regressions:
> some regressions were linked to not jumping to the new max directly. I
> assume some level were started whereas it would take too much time
> and some regressions happened if the decay was too quick
Hmm, fair enough..
There's always something like:
s64 diff = new - *cost;
if (diff < 0)
diff = 3*diff/256;
*cost += diff;
Which jumps up instantly and decays rather slower. The advantage of
something like that, as I see it, is all those lines it deletes, but if
it doesn't actually work, it doesn't work.
A well. Thanks for trying.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists