[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4a005396-46fd-443c-be15-6fe0e2a1dea5@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 10:43:59 +0000
From: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: lukasz.luba@....com, mingo@...hat.com, mgorman@...e.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bristot@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
rafael@...nel.org, vschneid@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, bsegall@...gle.com, qyousef@...alina.io,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/pelt: avoid underestimate of task utilization
On 22/11/2023 14:01, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> [...]
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 07f555857698..eeb505d28905 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4774,6 +4774,11 @@ static inline unsigned long task_util(struct task_struct *p)
> return READ_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_avg);
> }
>
> +static inline unsigned long task_runnable(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + return READ_ONCE(p->se.avg.runnable_avg);
> +}
> +
> static inline unsigned long _task_util_est(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> struct util_est ue = READ_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_est);
> @@ -4892,6 +4897,14 @@ static inline void util_est_update(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> if (task_util(p) > arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq))))
> return;
>
> + /*
> + * To avoid underestimate of task utilization, skip updates of ewma if
> + * we cannot grant that thread got all CPU time it wanted.
> + */
> + if ((ue.enqueued + UTIL_EST_MARGIN) < task_runnable(p))
> + goto done;
> +
> +
Actually, does this also skip util_est increases as well, assuming no
FASTUP? When a task is ramping up, another task could join and then
blocks this task from ramping up its util_est.
Or do we think this is intended behavior for !FASTUP?
> /*
> * Update Task's estimated utilization
> *
Powered by blists - more mailing lists