From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net,
alexs@kernel.org, siyanteng@loongson.cn, qyousef@layalina.io,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
lukasz.luba@arm.com, hongyan.xia2@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Simplify util_est
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 16:02:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtC44Quvppj4ZVWp7R837CUFA_FtEXjN_z8aAfMuSEOS3w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b5d83fcd-09fb-4680-a594-d4848fddc50a@arm.com>
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 at 14:42, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/11/2023 15:32, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > With UTIL_EST_FASTUP now being permanent, we can take advantage of the
> > fact that the ewma jumps directly to a higher utilization at dequeue to
> > simplify util_est and remove the enqueued field.
> >
>
> Did some simple test with a ramp-up/ramp_down (10-80-10%) task affine to
> a CPU.
>
> https://nbviewer.org/github/deggeman/lisa/blob/ipynbs/ipynb/scratchpad/util_est_fastup.ipynb
>
> LGTM.
Thanks
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -4879,27 +4865,22 @@ static inline void util_est_update(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> > * Skip update of task's estimated utilization when its members are
> > * already ~1% close to its last activation value.
> > */
> > - last_ewma_diff = ue.enqueued - ue.ewma;
> > - last_enqueued_diff -= ue.enqueued;
> > - if (within_margin(last_ewma_diff, UTIL_EST_MARGIN)) {
> > - if (!within_margin(last_enqueued_diff, UTIL_EST_MARGIN))
> > - goto done;
> > -
> > - return;
> > - }
> > + last_ewma_diff = ewma - dequeued;
> > + if (last_ewma_diff < UTIL_EST_MARGIN)
> > + goto done;
> >
> > /*
> > * To avoid overestimation of actual task utilization, skip updates if
> > * we cannot grant there is idle time in this CPU.
> > */
> > - if (task_util(p) > arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq))))
> > + if (dequeued > arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq))))
> > return;
>
> Not directly related to the changes: Should we not use `goto done` here
> is well to rearm UTIL_AVG_UNCHANGED?
I noticed this as well but didn't want to mix 2 topics.
>
> > /*
> > * To avoid underestimate of task utilization, skip updates of EWMA if
> > * we cannot grant that thread got all CPU time it wanted.
> > */
> > - if ((ue.enqueued + UTIL_EST_MARGIN) < task_runnable(p))
> > + if ((dequeued + UTIL_EST_MARGIN) < task_runnable(p))
> > goto done;
> >
> >
> > @@ -4914,18 +4895,18 @@ static inline void util_est_update(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> > * ewma(t) = w * task_util(p) + (1-w) * ewma(t-1)
> > * = w * task_util(p) + ewma(t-1) - w * ewma(t-1)
> > * = w * (task_util(p) - ewma(t-1)) + ewma(t-1)
> > - * = w * ( last_ewma_diff ) + ewma(t-1)
> > - * = w * (last_ewma_diff + ewma(t-1) / w)
> > + * = w * ( -last_ewma_diff ) + ewma(t-1)
> > + * = w * (-last_ewma_diff + ewma(t-1) / w)
> > *
> > * Where 'w' is the weight of new samples, which is configured to be
> > * 0.25, thus making w=1/4 ( >>= UTIL_EST_WEIGHT_SHIFT)
> > */
>
> The text above still mentioned ue.enqueued and that we store the current
> PELT value ... which isn't the case anymore.
argh, I missed this one
>
>
> > - ue.ewma <<= UTIL_EST_WEIGHT_SHIFT;
> > - ue.ewma += last_ewma_diff;
> > - ue.ewma >>= UTIL_EST_WEIGHT_SHIFT;
> > + ewma <<= UTIL_EST_WEIGHT_SHIFT;
> > + ewma -= last_ewma_diff;
> > + ewma >>= UTIL_EST_WEIGHT_SHIFT;
> > done:
> > - ue.enqueued |= UTIL_AVG_UNCHANGED;
> > - WRITE_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_est, ue);
> > + ewma |= UTIL_AVG_UNCHANGED;
> > + WRITE_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_est, ewma);
> >
> > trace_sched_util_est_se_tp(&p->se);
> > }
>
> [...]
>
> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Thanks
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-30 15:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-27 14:32 [PATCH 0/2] Simplify Util_est Vincent Guittot
2023-11-27 14:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Remove SCHED_FEAT(UTIL_EST_FASTUP, true) Vincent Guittot
2023-11-30 13:42 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-11-30 20:30 ` Hongyan Xia
2023-12-01 2:16 ` Tang Yizhou
2023-12-01 7:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-12-01 7:41 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-11-27 14:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Simplify util_est Vincent Guittot
2023-11-30 13:42 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-11-30 15:02 ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2023-11-30 20:50 ` Hongyan Xia
2023-11-30 12:53 ` [PATCH 0/2] Simplify Util_est Lukasz Luba
2023-11-30 14:55 ` Vincent Guittot
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=CAKfTPtC44Quvppj4ZVWp7R837CUFA_FtEXjN_z8aAfMuSEOS3w@mail.gmail.com \
--to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=alexs@kernel.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=hongyan.xia2@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukasz.luba@arm.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=siyanteng@loongson.cn \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®