Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] sched/pelt: Move pelt related code in a dedicated file

[Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>]

On Tuesday 29 May 2018 at 17:02:29 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
> 
> On 29 May 2018 at 16:55, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday 25 May 2018 at 19:04:55 (+0100), Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > On 25-May 15:26, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > > And also, I understand these functions are large, but if we _really_
> > > > want to inline them even though they're big, why not putting them in
> > > > sched-pelt.h ?
> > >
> > > Had the same tought at first... but then I recalled that header is
> > > generated from a script. Thus, eventually, it should be a different one.
> >
> > Ah, good point. This patch already introduces a pelt.h so I guess that
> > could work as well.
> >
> > >
> > > > We probably wouldn't accept that for everything, but
> > > > those PELT functions are used all over the place, including latency
> > > > sensitive code paths (e.g. task wake-up).
> > >
> > > We should better measure the overheads, if any, and check what
> > > (a modern) compiler does. Maybe some hackbench run could help on the
> > > first point.
> >
> > FWIW, I ran a few hackbench tests today on my Intel box:
> >  - Intel i7-6700 (4 cores / 8 threads) @ 3.40GHz
> >  - Base kernel: today's tip/sched/core "2539fc82aa9b sched/fair: Update
> >    util_est before updating schedutil"
> >  - Compiler: GCC 7.3.0
> 
> Which cpufreq governor are you using ?

powersave, with the intel_pstate driver.

> 
> >
> > The tables below summarize the results for:
> > perf stat --repeat 10 perf bench sched messaging --pipe --thread -l 50000 --group G
> >
> > Without patch:
> >   +---+-------+----------+---------+
> >   | G | Tasks | Duration | Stddev  |
> >   +---+-------+----------+---------+
> >   | 1 | 40    | 3.906    | +-0.84% |
> >   | 2 | 80    | 8.569    | +-0.77% |
> >   | 4 | 160   | 16.384   | +-0.46% |
> >   | 8 | 320   | 33.686   | +-0.42% |
> >   +---+-------+----------+---------+
> >
> > With patch:
> 
> Just to make sure. You mean only this patch and not the whole patchset ?

That's right, I applied only this patch.

> 
> >   +---+-------+----------------+---------+
> >   | G | Tasks | Duration       | Stddev  |
> >   +---+-------+----------------+---------+
> >   | 1 | 40    | 3.953 (+1.2%)  | +-1.43% |
> >   | 2 | 80    | 8.646 (+0.9%)  | +-0.32% |
> >   | 4 | 160   | 16.390 (+0.0%) | +-0.38% |
> >   | 8 | 320   | 33.992 (+0.9%) | +-0.27% |
> >   +---+-------+----------------+---------+
> >
> > So there is (maybe) a little something on my box, but not so significant
> > IMHO ... :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Quentin