Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default boost value

[Vincent Guittot]

H Qais,

Sorry for the late reply.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 12:45, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 06/04/20 14:14, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > I have tried your patch and I don't see any difference compared to
> > previous tests. Let me give you more details of my setup:
> > I create 3 levels of cgroups and usually run the tests in the 4 levels
> > (which includes root). The result above are for the root level
> >
> > But I see a difference at other levels:
> >
> >                            root           level 1       level 2       level 3
> >
> > /w patch uclamp disable     50097         46615         43806         41078
> > tip uclamp enable           48706(-2.78%) 45583(-2.21%) 42851(-2.18%)
> > 40313(-1.86%)
> > /w patch uclamp enable      48882(-2.43%) 45774(-1.80%) 43108(-1.59%)
> > 40667(-1.00%)
> >
> > Whereas tip with uclamp stays around 2% behind tip without uclamp, the
> > diff of uclamp with your patch tends to decrease when we increase the
> > number of level
>
> Thanks for the extra info. Let me try this.
>
> If you can run perf and verify that you see activate/deactivate_task showing up
> as overhead I'd appreciate it. Just to confirm that indeed what we're seeing
> here are symptoms of the same problem Mel is seeing.

I see call to  activate_task() for each wakeup of the sched-pipi thread

>
> > Beside this, that's also interesting to notice the ~6% of perf impact
> > between each level for the same image
>
> Interesting indeed.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Qais Yousef