Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue

[Vincent Guittot]

On 29 September 2016 at 18:15, Dietmar Eggemann
<dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 28/09/16 14:13, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Le Wednesday 28 Sep 2016 Ã 05:27:54 (-0700), Vincent Guittot a Ãcrit :
>>> On 28 September 2016 at 04:31, Dietmar Eggemann
>>> <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/16 12:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:06:43PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/09/16 11:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:58:08PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> IIUC the problem raised by Matt, he see a regression because we now remove
>> during the dequeue the exact same load as during the enqueue so
>> cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg is null so we select a cfs_rq that might already have
>> a lot of hackbench blocked thread.
>
> This is my understanding as well.
>
>> The fact that runnable_load_avg is null, when the cfs_rq doesn't have runnable
>> task, is quite correct and we should keep it. But when we look for the idlest
>> group, we have to take into account the blocked thread.
>>
>> That's what i have tried to do below
>
> [...]
>
>> +             /*
>> +              * In case that we have same runnable load (especially null
>> +              *  runnable load), we select the group with smallest blocked
>> +              *  load
>> +              */
>> +                     min_avg_load = avg_load;
>> +                     min_runnable_load = runnable_load;
>
> Setting 'min_runnable_load' wouldn't be necessary here.

fair enough

>
>>                       idlest = group;
>>               }
>> +
>>       } while (group = group->next, group != sd->groups);
>>
>> -     if (!idlest || 100*this_load < imbalance*min_load)
>> +     if (!idlest || 100*this_load < imbalance*min_runnable_load)
>>               return NULL;
>>       return idlest;
>
> On the Hikey board (ARM64) (2 cluster, each 4 cpu's, so MC and DIE), the
> first f_i_g (on DIE) is still based on rbl_load. So if the first
> hackbench task (spawning all the worker task) runs on cluster1, and the
> former worker p_X already blocks f_i_g returns cluster2, if p_X still
> runs, it returns idlest=NULL and we continue with cluster1 for second
> f_i_g on MC.
>
> The additional 'else if' condition doesn't seem to help much because of
> occurrences where an idle cpu (which never took a worker) still has a
> small value of rbl_load (shouldn't actually happen, weighted_cpuload()
> should be 0) so it is never chosen or it has even a negative impact in
> the case where an idle cpu (which never took a worker) is not chosen
> because its load (cfs->avg.load_avg) hasn't been updated for a long time
> so another cpu with rbl_load = 0 and a smaller load is used (even though
> a lot of worker where already placed on it).

So the elseif part is there to take care of the regression raised by
Matt where the runnable_load_avg is null because worker are blocked
and the same cpu is selected
This can be extended with a threshold in order to include small
differences that came from computation rounding

>
> There are also episodes where we 'pack' workers onto the cpu which is
> initially picked in f_i_c (on DIE) because (100*this_load <
> imbalance*min_load) is true in f_i_g on MC. Maybe we can get rid of this
> for !sd->child ?

This threshold is there to filter any small variations that are not
relevant. I'm going to extend the use of cfs_rq_load_avg() in all
conditions so we take into account blocked load everywhere instead of
only when runnable_load_avg is null

>
> [...]