[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y2z2/nhGfud7NIM8@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:05:02 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc: Kajetan Puchalski <kajetan.puchalski@....com>,
Jian-Min Liu <jian-min.liu@...iatek.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...cinc.com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jonathan JMChen <jonathan.jmchen@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] sched/pelt: Change PELT halflife at runtime
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:16:26PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 07/11/2022 14:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 03:41:47PM +0100, Kajetan Puchalski wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -2956,13 +2958,26 @@ static inline unsigned long cpu_util_dl(struct rq *rq)
> > */
> > static inline unsigned long cpu_util_cfs(int cpu)
> > {
> > + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
> > unsigned long util;
> >
> > - cfs_rq = &cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs;
> > + cfs_rq = &rq->cfs;
> > util = READ_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_avg);
> >
> > if (sched_feat(UTIL_EST)) {
> > + if (sched_feat(UTIL_EST_FASTER)) {
> > + struct task_struct *curr;
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + curr = rcu_dereference(rq->curr);
> > + if (likely(curr->sched_class == &fair_sched_class)) {
> > + u64 runtime = curr->se.sum_exec_runtime - curr->se.exec_start;
>
> Don't we and up with gigantic runtime numbers here?
>
> oot@...o:~# cat /proc/1676/task/1676/schedstat
> 36946300 1150620 11
> root@...o:~# cat /proc/1676/task/1676/sched
> rt-app (1676, #threads: 2)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> se.exec_start : 77766.964240 <- !
> se.vruntime : 563.587883
> e.sum_exec_runtime : 36.946300 <- !
> se.nr_migrations : 0
> ...
>
> I expect cpu_util_cfs() to be ~1024 almost all the time now.
Duh, obviously I meant to measure the runtime of the current activation
and messed up.
We don't appear to have the right information to compute this atm :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists