From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932966AbbCXRnj (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:43:39 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:49035 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756674AbbCXRng (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:43:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:44:09 +0000 From: Morten Rasmussen To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: "mingo@redhat.com" , "vincent.guittot@linaro.org" , Dietmar Eggemann , "yuyang.du@intel.com" , "preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "mturquette@linaro.org" , "nico@linaro.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , Juri Lelli , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFCv3 PATCH 18/48] sched: Track blocked utilization contributions Message-ID: <20150324174409.GJ18994@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1423074685-6336-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com> <1423074685-6336-19-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com> <20150323140801.GH23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150324094347.GB18994@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150324160729.GX23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150324160729.GX23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:07:29PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 09:43:47AM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:08:01PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 06:30:55PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > > Introduces the blocked utilization, the utilization counter-part to > > > > cfs_rq->utilization_load_avg. It is the sum of sched_entity utilization > > > > contributions of entities that were recently on the cfs_rq that are > > > > currently blocked. Combined with sum of contributions of entities > > > > currently on the cfs_rq or currently running > > > > (cfs_rq->utilization_load_avg) this can provide a more stable average > > > > view of the cpu usage. > > > > > > So it would be nice if you add performance numbers for all these patches > > > that add accounting muck.. > > > > Total scheduler latency (as in hackbench?), individual function > > latencies, or something else? > > Yeah, good question that. Something that is good at running this code a > lot. So dequeue_entity() -> dequeue_entity_load_avg() -> > update_entity_load_avg() -> __update_entity_runnable_avg() seems a > reliable way into here, and IIRC hackbench does a lot of that, so yes, > that might just work. Hackbench does a lot of that. I used it recently to measure the impact of the weak arch_scale_*() functions. I will dig out some numbers.