From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: add support to tune PELT ramp/decay timings
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 21:13:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180412191318.GA7129@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180409165134.707-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 05:51:34PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> The PELT half-life is the time [ms] required by the PELT signal to build
> up a 50% load/utilization, starting from zero. This time is currently
> hardcoded to be 32ms, a value which seems to make sense for most of the
> workloads.
>
> However, 32ms has been verified to be too long for certain classes of
> workloads. For example, in the mobile space many tasks affecting the
> user-experience run with a 16ms or 8ms cadence, since they need to match
> the common 60Hz or 120Hz refresh rate of the graphics pipeline.
> This contributed so fare to the idea that "PELT is too slow" to properly
> track the utilization of interactive mobile workloads, especially
> compared to alternative load tracking solutions which provides a
> better representation of tasks demand in the range of 10-20ms.
Initially the 32 was chosen to more or less correspond to the effective
scheduling period (sysctl_sched_latency based). The thinking was that if
you pick a PELT window shorter than the period, the result becomes
unstable due to not all tasks getting an equal go at things.
(of course, stuffing enough tasks on a rq will break this, but at that
point you have worse problems to deal with)
Should we retain this? Esp. with the lower end (8ms) I worry we'll see
more of those effects.
> Fortunately, since the integration of the utilization estimation
> support in mainline kernel:
>
> commit 7f65ea42eb00 ("sched/fair: Add util_est on top of PELT")
>
> a fast decay time is no longer an issue for tasks utilization estimation.
> Although estimated utilization does not slow down the decay of blocked
> utilization on idle CPUs, for mobile workloads this seems not to be a
> major concern compared to the benefits in interactivity responsiveness.
By picking a smaller PELT window, the util_est window shrinks
correspondingly; is that intentional or do we want to modify
UTIL_EST_WEIGHT_SHIFT to negate the PELT window changes?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-12 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-09 16:51 Patrick Bellasi
2018-04-12 19:13 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180412191318.GA7129@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=smuckle@google.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome