From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE92C433E6 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:01:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFF822B51 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:01:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726109AbhAZFAx (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 00:00:53 -0500 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:26446 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726388AbhAYJVu (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 04:21:50 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,373,1602540000"; d="scan'208";a="488894794" Received: from clt-128-93-178-244.vpn.inria.fr ([128.93.178.244]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Jan 2021 10:20:27 +0100 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:20:27 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Mel Gorman cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Daniel Bristot de Oliveira , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: check for idle core In-Reply-To: <20210125091238.GE20777@suse.de> Message-ID: References: <1603372550-14680-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> <20201027091936.GS32041@suse.de> <20210125091238.GE20777@suse.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 25 Jan 2021, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 09:38:14PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:15:50PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > Fixes: 11f10e5420f6 ("sched/fair: Use load instead of runnable load in wakeup path") > > > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall > > > > Reviewed-by Vincent Guittot > > > > > > > > > > While not a universal win, it was mostly a win or neutral. In few cases > > > where there was a problem, one benchmark I'm a bit suspicious of generally > > > as occasionally it generates bad results for unknown and unpredictable > > > reasons. In another, it was very machine specific and the differences > > > were small in absolte time rather than relative time. Other tests on the > > > same machine were fine so overall; > > > > > > Acked-by: Mel Gorman > > > > Recently, we have been testing the phoronix multicore benchmarks. On v5.9 > > with this patch, the preparation time of phoronix slows down, from ~23 > > seconds to ~28 seconds. In v5.11-rc4, we see 29 seconds. It's not yet > > clear what causes the problem. But perhaps the patch should be removed > > from v5.11, until the problem is understood. > > > > commit d8fcb81f1acf651a0e50eacecca43d0524984f87 > > > > I'm not 100% convinved given that it was a mix of wins and losses. In > the wakup path in general, universal wins almost never happen. It's not > 100% clear from your mail what happens during the preparation patch. If > it included time to download the benchmarks and install then it would be > inherently variable due to network time (if download) or cache hotness > (if installing/compiling). While preparation time can be interesting -- > for example, if preparation involves reading a lot of files from disk, > it's not universally interesting when it's not the critical phase of a > benchmark. The benchmark is completely downloaded prior to the runs. There seems to be some perturbation to the activation of containerd. Normally it is even: * * * * and with the patch it becomes more like: * ** ** That is every other one is on time, and every other one is late. But I don't know why this happens. julia > > I think it would be better to wait until the problem is fully understood > to see if it's a timing artifact (e.g. a race between when prev_cpu is > observed to be idle and when it is busy). > > -- > Mel Gorman > SUSE Labs >