From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754985AbdEDRnw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 4 May 2017 13:43:52 -0400
Received: from mail-yw0-f195.google.com ([209.85.161.195]:33494 "EHLO
        mail-yw0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751333AbdEDRno (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 4 May 2017 13:43:44 -0400
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 13:43:41 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg
Message-ID: <20170504174341.GC7288@htj.duckdns.org>
References: <CAKfTPtAasz-YAUGRKciY_Pab13n+2QGU6-xC=j7ef+jvqGwFtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170428203347.GC19364@htj.duckdns.org>
 <CAKfTPtB3PectZVm_z6NhSszXwG-G=y-J1Y5Rxk48bLxHQ8mx4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170502215054.GC5335@htj.duckdns.org>
 <CAKfTPtB9kns1X7zCGYrd98M1ubHq5RfAqiopcCw1-4Q6Y=nYdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170503093723.tnt53ppb23tn6buz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKfTPtC8wS5ATRN1vLa2ERT7oF9MUcBu3=MsiQ5PiP16nYXRgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170503130938.44rftdivrlpz4p3b@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170503214913.GB7451@htj.duckdns.org>
 <CAKfTPtBSVyjxbu+4A86xUqxAnimkKomFOQpWkYv4yGHDHbU09Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtBSVyjxbu+4A86xUqxAnimkKomFOQpWkYv4yGHDHbU09Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello,

On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:19:46AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > schbench inside a cgroup and have some base load, it is actually
> > expected to show worse latency.  You need to give higher weight to the
> > cgroup matching the number of active threads (to be accruate, scaled
> > by duty cycle but shouldn't matter too much in practice).
> 
> I don't have to change anything cgroup weight with mainline to get
> good number which means that the base load which is quite close to
> null, is probably not the problem

So, while that *could* be the case, it could also be the baseline
incorrectly favoring the nested cfs_rqs over other tasks because of
the nested runnables being inflated with blocked load avgs.  I think
it'd be a good idea to test with matching weight to put things on the
even ground.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun