Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDN-Qq-qDKZSsMk3dg1RiameFRYe6L4c_OC7D1j0=Mrew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:16:37 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>, 
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, 
	Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	David Dai <davidai@...gle.com>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] uclamp sum aggregation

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 at 14:12, Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com> wrote:
>
> Current implementation of uclamp leaves many things to be desired.
> There are three noteworthy problems:
>
> 1. Max aggregation only takes into account the max uclamp value. All
>    other uclamp values are not in effect.
> 2. Uclamp max aggregation gives UCLAMP_MIN and UCLAMP_MAX at the rq
>    level, and whether that translates to the desired performance of a
>    specific task is unknown, because it depends on other tasks on rq.
> 3. Complexity. Uclamp max aggregation now sits at more than 750 lines of
>    code and there is ongoing work to rework several interfaces to
>    prepare for further uclamp changes. Uclamp max aggregation itself
>    also needs future improvements in uclamp filtering and load balancing
>
> The first 2 points can manifest into the following symptoms,
>
> 1. High-rate OPP changes ("frequency spike" problem). An always-running
>    task with a UCLAMP_MAX of 200 will drive the CPU at 200 even though
>    its utilization is 1024. However, when a util_avg task of 300 but
>    with default UCLAMP_MAX of 1024 joins the rq, the rq UCLAMP_MAX will
>    be uncapped, and the UCLAMP_MAX of the first task is no longer in
>    effect therefore driving the CPU at 1024, the highest OPP. When the
>    second task sleeps, the OPP will be reduced to 200. This fast and
>    sudden OPP switch every time the 2nd task wakes up or sleeps is
>    unnecessary.
> 2. Using UCLAMP_MIN to boost performance under max aggregation has been
>    shown to have weaker effectiveness than "sum aggregated" approaches,
>    including the util_guest proposal [1] and uclamp sum aggregation in
>    this series. The performance level of UCLAMP_MIN for a task under max
>    aggregation is unpredictable when there are more than 1 task runnable
>    on the rq.
>
> This series solves these problems by tracking a
> util_avg_uclamp signal in tasks and root cfs_rq. At task level,
> p->se.avg.util_avg_uclamp is basically tracking the normal util_avg, but
> clamped within its uclamp min and max. At cfs_rq level, util_avg_uclamp
> must always be the sum of all util_avg_uclamp of all the entities on
> this cfs_rq. As a result, rq->cfs.avg.util_avg_uclamp is the sum
> aggregation of all the clamped values, which hints the frequency
> this rq should run at and what the utilization is. This proposal has
> some similarities to the util_guest series for VM workloads, in that it
> brings the desired performance to the task that requested it, not to the
> rq, in which the share of the task is unpredictable.

As I mentioned in your previous version, I don't want such mixed
signals which are hard to maintain (as you then try to compensate for
all side effects and compensate for some decaying as an example) and
don't mean anything at the end. You must find another way if you want
to go in that direction of sum aggregated.

>
> Note: This new signal does not change the existing PELT signal. The new
> signal is only an extra hint to the scheduler to improve scheduling
> decisions.
>
> TL;DR OF THIS SERIES:
>
> - Our evaluation shows significantly better effectiveness than max
>   aggregation. UI benchmarks and VM workloads have improved latency and
>   higher scores at the same or even reduced power consumption.
> - For other benchmarks that do not involve uclamp, we have not observed
>   any noticeable regressions.
> - This series is the entirety of sum aggregation. No groundwork or
>   refactoring in the scheduler is needed. The complexity of several
>   existing uclamp-related functions is massively reduced and sum
>   aggregation code is less than half of that in max aggregation (304+,
>   701-). The complexity gap will be even greater with all the ongoing
>   patches for max aggregation.
>
> DECOMPOSITION OF SUM AGGREGATION:
>
> - Patch 1 reverts some max aggregation code. Sum aggregation shows no

Sorry I don't get what you mean here by reverting some max aggregation
code ? This is not really linked to max aggregation but how EAS and
feec() try to compute energy

The code that is reverted here mainly highlights where your problem is
and more generally speaking one of the problems of the current
algorithm of EAS and feec() when it tries to estimate the energy cost.
We don't take into account that an utilization becoming larger the cpu
capacity means more running time. Such problem has been highlighted
previously and is one root cause of the problems that you are trying
to solve there

>   such problems so mitigation patches are not necessary, and that
>   patch has other undesirable side effects.
> - Patch 2 and 3 introduce new sum aggregated signals to be a more
>   effective hint to the scheduler. Patch 3 employs a math trick to make
>   it significantly simpler to track on-rq and off-rq task utilization
>   contributions.
> - Patch 4, 5 and 6 start using the new signal while significantly
>   simplifying existing uclamp code, including the total removal of
>   uclamp buckets and max aggregation.
> - Patch 7 and part of 6 remove the overhead of uclamp on task
>   enqueue and dequeue, because uclamp values and buckets no longer need
>   to be re-computed every time a uclamp'ed task joins or leaves the rq.
>
> TESTING:
>
> Sum aggregation generally performs better in tests. Two notebooks, max
> vs. sum aggregation, are shared at
>
> https://nbviewer.org/github/honxia02/notebooks/blob/618de22a8da96205015fefabee203536683bd4e2/whitebox/max.ipynb
> https://nbviewer.org/github/honxia02/notebooks/blob/618de22a8da96205015fefabee203536683bd4e2/whitebox/sum.ipynb
>
> The experiments done in notebooks are on Arm Juno r2 board. CPU0-3 are
> little cores with capacity of 383. CPU4-5 are big cores. The rt-app
> profiles used for these experiments are included in the notebooks.
>
> Scenario 1: Scheduling 4 always-running tasks with UCLAMP_MAX at 200.
>
> The scheduling decisions are plotted in Out[11]. Both max and sum
> aggregation recognizes the UCLAMP_MAX hints and run all the threads
> on the little Performance Domain (PD). However, max aggregation in the
> test shows some randomness in task placement, and we see the 4 threads
> are often not evenly distributed across the 4 little CPUs. This uneven
> task placement is also the reason why we revert the patch:
>
> "sched/uclamp: Set max_spare_cap_cpu even if max_spare_cap is 0"
>
> When the spare capacity is 0, the reverted patch tends to gather many
> tasks on the same CPU because its EM calculation is bogus and it thinks
> this placement is more energy efficient.

So the problem is not max vs sum aggregation but fix feec()

>
> Scenario 2: Scheduling 4 tasks with UCLAMP_MIN and UCLAMP_MAX at a value
> slightly above the capacity of the little CPU.
>
> Results are in Out[17]. The purpose is to use UCLAMP_MIN to place tasks
> on the big core but not to run at the highest OPP. Both max and sum
> aggregation accomplish this task successfully, running the two threads
> at the big cluster while not driving the frequency at the max.

No problem here

>
> Scenario 3: Task A is a task with a small utilization pinned to CPU4.
> Task B is an always-running task pinned to CPU5, but UCLAMP_MAX capped
> at 300. After a while, task A is then pinned to CPU5, joining B.
>
> Results are in Out[23]. The util_avg curve is the original root CFS
> util_avg. The root_cfs_util_uclamp is the root CFS utilization after
> considering uclamp. Max aggregation sees a frequency spike at 751.7s.
> When zoomed in, one can see square-wave-like utilization and CPU

sidenote: there is no graph showed in your links so nothing to see or zoom

> frequency values because of task A periodically going to sleep. When A
> wakes up, its default UCLAMP_MAX of 1024 will uncap B and reach the
> highest CPU frequency. When A sleeps, B's UCLAMP_MAX will be in effect
> and will reduce rq utilization to 300. This happens repeatedly, hence
> the square wave. In contrast, sum aggregation sees a normal increase in

What do you mean by normal increase ?

> utilization when A joins B, at around 430.64s, without any square-wave
> behavior. The CPU frequency also stays stable while the two tasks are on
> the same rq.

Difficult to make any comment as there is no graph to see in your link.

What should be the right frequency in such a case ?

>
> Scenario 4: 4 always-running tasks with UCLAMP_MAX of 120 pinned to the
> little PD (CPU0-3). 4 same tasks pinned to the big PD (CPU4-5).
> After a while, remove the CPU pinning of the 4 tasks on the big PD.
>
> Results are in Out[29]. Both max and sum aggregation understand that we
> can move the 4 tasks from the big PD to the little PD to reduce power
> because of the UCLAMP_MAX hints. However, max aggregation shows severely
> unbalanced task placement, scheduling 5 tasks on CPU0 while 1 each on
> CPU1-3. Sum aggregation schedules 2 tasks on each little CPU, honoring
> UCLAMP_MAX while maintaining balanced task placement.
>
> Again, this unbalanced task placement is the reason why we reverted:
>
> "sched/uclamp: Set max_spare_cap_cpu even if max_spare_cap is 0"

So then it's not a matter a sum vs max aggregation but to fix the EAS
policy to place tasks correctly

>
> Scenario 5: 8 tasks with UCLAMP_MAX of 120.
>
> This test is similar to Scenario 4, shown in Out[35]. Both max and sum
> aggregation understand the UCLAMP_MAX hints and schedule all tasks on
> the 4 little CPUs. Max aggregation again shows unstable and unbalanced
> task placement while sum aggregation schedules 2 tasks on each little
> CPU, and the task placement remains stable. The total task residency is
> shown in Out[36], showing how unbalanced max aggregation is.

same comment as previous test

>
> BENCHMARKS:
>
> Geekbench 6, no uclamp (on Rock-5B board)
> +-----+-------------+------------+
> |     | Single-core | Multi-core |
> +-----+-------------+------------+
> | Max |      801.3  |     2976.8 |
> | Sum |      802.8  |     2989.2 |
> +-----+-------------+------------+
>
> No regression is seen after switching to sum aggregation.
>
> Jankbench (backporting sum aggregation to Pixel 6 Android 5.18 mainline kernel):
>
> Jank percentage:
> +------+-------+-----------+
> |      | value | perc_diff |
> +------+-------+-----------+
> | main |  1.1  |    0.00%  |
> |  sum |  0.5  |  -53.92%  |
> +------+-------+-----------+
>
> Average power:
> +------------+------+-------+-----------+
> |            |  tag | value | perc_diff |
> +------------+------+-------+-----------+
> |    CPU     |  max | 166.1 |   0.00%   |
> |  CPU-Big   |  max | 55.1  |   0.00%   |
> | CPU-Little |  max | 91.7  |   0.00%   |
> |  CPU-Mid   |  max | 19.2  |   0.00%   |
> |    CPU     |  sum | 161.3 |  -2.85%   |
> |  CPU-Big   |  sum | 52.9  |  -3.97%   |
> | CPU-Little |  sum | 86.7  |  -5.39%   |
> |  CPU-Mid   |  sum | 21.6  |  12.63%   |
> +------------+------+-------+-----------+
>
> UIBench (backporting sum aggregation to Pixel 6 Android 6.6 mainline kernel):
>
> Jank percentage:
> +-------------+-------+-----------+
> |      tag    | value | perc_diff |
> +-------------+-------+-----------+
> |   max_aggr  |  0.3  |    0.0    |
> |   sum_aggr  |  0.26 |   -12.5   |
> +-------------+-------+-----------+
>
> Average input latency:
> +-------------+--------+-----------+
> |      tag    | value  | perc_diff |
> +-------------+--------+-----------+
> |   max_aggr  | 107.39 |    0.0    |
> |   sum_aggr  | 81.135 |   -24.5   |
> +-------------+--------+-----------+
>
> Average power:
> +------------+--------------+--------+-----------+
> |  channel   |     tag      | value  | perc_diff |
> +------------+--------------+--------+-----------+
> |    CPU     |   max_aggr   | 209.85 |   0.0%    |
> |  CPU-Big   |   max_aggr   |  89.8  |   0.0%    |
> | CPU-Little |   max_aggr   |  94.45 |   0.0%    |
> |  CPU-Mid   |   max_aggr   |  25.45 |   0.0%    |
> |    GPU     |   max_aggr   |  22.9  |   0.0%    |
> |   Total    |   max_aggr   | 232.75 |   0.0%    |
> |    CPU     |   sum_aggr   | 206.05 |  -1.81%   |
> |  CPU-Big   |   sum_aggr   |  84.7  |  -5.68%   |
> | CPU-Little |   sum_aggr   |  94.9  |   0.48%   |
> |  CPU-Mid   |   sum_aggr   |  26.3  |   3.34%   |
> |    GPU     |   sum_aggr   |  22.45 |  -1.97%   |
> |   Total    |   sum_aggr   | 228.5  |  -1.83%   |
> +------------+--------------+--------+-----------+
>
> It should be noted that sum aggregation reduces jank and reduces input
> latency while consuming less power.
>
> VM cpufreq hypercall driver [1], on Rock-5B board. Baseline indicates a
> setup without the VM cpufreq driver:
>
> Geekbench 6 uncontended. No other host threads running.
> +------+-------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
> |      | Single-core | perc_diff | Multi-core | perc_diff |
> +------+-------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
> | base |      796.4  |         0 |     2947.0 |         0 |
> |  max |      795.6  |     -0.10 |     2929.6 |     -0.59 |
> |  sum |      794.6  |     -0.23 |     2935.6 |     -0.39 |
> +------+-------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
>
> Geekbench 6 contended. Host CPUs each has a 50% duty-cycle task running.
> +------+-------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
> |      | Single-core | perc_diff | Multi-core | perc_diff |
> +------+-------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
> | base |      604.6  |         0 |     2330.2 |         0 |
> |  max |      599.4  |     -0.86 |     2327.2 |     -0.13 |
> |  sum |      645.8  |      6.81 |     2336.6 |      0.27 |
> +------+-------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
>
> VM CPUfreq driver using sum aggregation outperforms max aggregation when
> the host is contended. When the host has no contention (only the VM
> vCPUs are running and each host CPU accommodates one guest vCPU), the
> two aggregation methods are roughly the same, and a bit surprisingly,
> offers no speed-up versus the baseline. This is probably because of the
> overhead of hypercalls, and the fact that Geekbench is CPU intensive and
> is not the best workload to show the effectiveness of VM cpufreq driver.
> We will try to benchmark on more VM workloads.
>
> LIMITATIONS:
>
> 1. RT sum aggregation is not shown in the series.
>
> A proof-of-concept RT sum aggregation implementation is done and going
> through testing, with < 50 lines of code, using the same ideas as in
> CFS. They will be sent out separately if we can agree on CFS sum
> aggregation and once the testing is done.
>
> 2. A heavily UCLAMP_MAX-throttled task may prevent the CFS rq from
>    triggering over-utilization.
>
> For example, two always-running task each having utilization of 512. If
> one of the task is severely UCLAMP_MAX restricted, say, with a
> UCLAMP_MAX of 1, then the total CFS sum aggregation will be 512 + 1 =
> 513, which won't trigger over-utilization even though the other task has
> no UCLAMP_MAX and wants more performance.

But what if they are pinned to the same CPU or other cpus are already
fully busy ? This is a blocking point because the uclamp of one task
then impacts the cpu bandwidth of another not clamped task

>
> I'm working on a fix for this problem. This at the moment can be solved
> by either not giving long-running tasks ridiculously low UCLAMP_MAX
> values, or adjusting the priority of UCLAMP_MAX tasks to make sure it
> does not get a share of CPU run-time that vastly exceeds its UCLAMP_MAX.
> However, my personal view is that maybe UCLAMP_MIN and UCLAMP_MAX just
> don't belong together, and the proper way is to have a per-task

No this is a blocking point. We don't want to add dependency between
nice priority and uclamp.

> bandwidth throttling mechanism and what we want as UCLAMP_MAX maybe
> actually belongs to that mechanism.
>
> However, since the Android GROUP_THROTTLE feature [2] has the exact same
> problem and has been used in actual products, we don't think this is a
> big limitation in practice.

This is not because an out of tree patchset is ok to go with a wrong
behavior that it makes this patchset acceptable

>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230331014356.1033759-1-davidai@google.com/
> [2]: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/gs/+/refs/heads/android-gs-raviole-5.10-android12-d1/drivers/soc/google/vh/kernel/sched/fair.c#510
>
> ---
> Changed in v2:
> - Rework util_avg_uclamp to be closer to the style of util_est.
> - Rewrite patch notes to reflect the new style.
> - Add the discussion of the under-utilizated example in limitations,
>   found by Vincent G.
> - Remove task group uclamp to focus on tasks first.
> - Fix several bugs in task migration.
> - Add benchmark numbers from UIBench and VM cpufreq.
> - Update python notebooks to reflect the latest max vs. sum aggregation.
>
> Hongyan Xia (7):
>   Revert "sched/uclamp: Set max_spare_cap_cpu even if max_spare_cap is
>     0"
>   sched/uclamp: Track uclamped util_avg in sched_avg
>   sched/uclamp: Introduce root_cfs_util_uclamp for rq
>   sched/fair: Use CFS util_avg_uclamp for utilization and frequency
>   sched/fair: Massively simplify util_fits_cpu()
>   sched/uclamp: Remove all uclamp bucket logic
>   sched/uclamp: Simplify uclamp_eff_value()
>
>  include/linux/sched.h            |   7 +-
>  init/Kconfig                     |  32 ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c              | 324 +++---------------------------
>  kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c |  10 +-
>  kernel/sched/fair.c              | 333 +++++++------------------------
>  kernel/sched/pelt.c              | 144 ++++++++++++-
>  kernel/sched/pelt.h              |   6 +-
>  kernel/sched/rt.c                |   4 -
>  kernel/sched/sched.h             | 145 ++++++--------
>  9 files changed, 304 insertions(+), 701 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists