Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched/fair: Drop out incomplete current period when sched averages accrue
From: Yuyang Du
Date: Mon Apr 11 2016 - 23:24:33 EST
Hi Vincent,
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:08:04AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > @@ -2704,11 +2694,14 @@ static __always_inline int
> > __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
> > unsigned long weight, int running, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > {
> > - u64 delta, scaled_delta, periods;
> > - u32 contrib;
> > - unsigned int delta_w, scaled_delta_w, decayed = 0;
> > + u64 delta;
> > + u32 contrib, periods;
> > unsigned long scale_freq, scale_cpu;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * now rolls down to a period boundary
> > + */
> > + now = now && (u64)(~0xFFFFF);
> > delta = now - sa->last_update_time;
> > /*
> > * This should only happen when time goes backwards, which it
> > @@ -2720,89 +2713,56 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > - * Use 1024ns as the unit of measurement since it's a reasonable
> > - * approximation of 1us and fast to compute.
> > + * Use 1024*1024ns as an approximation of 1ms period, pretty close.
> > */
> > - delta >>= 10;
> > - if (!delta)
> > + periods = delta >> 20;
> > + if (!periods)
> > return 0;
> > sa->last_update_time = now;
>
> The optimization looks quite interesting but I see one potential issue
> with migration as we will lose the part of the ongoing period that is
> now not saved anymore. This lost part can be quite significant for a
> short task that ping pongs between CPUs.
Yes, basically, it is we lose precision (~1ms scale in contrast with ~1us scale).
But as I wrote, we may either lose a sub-1ms, or gain a sub-1ms, statistically,
they should even out, given the load/util updates are quite a large number of
samples, and we do want a lot of samples for the metrics, this is the point of
the entire average thing. Plus, as you also said, the incomplete current period
also plays a (somewhat) negative role here.
In addition, excluding the flat hierarchical util patch, we gain quite some
efficiency.