Re: [PATCH 00/24] Complete EEVDF

[K Prateek Nayak]

Hello Sam,

On 11/9/2024 4:47 AM, Samuel Wu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 11:08 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:07 AM Luis Machado <luis.machado@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 11/6/24 11:09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 11:49:00AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Since delayed entities are still on the runqueue, they can affect PELT
> > > > > calculation. Vincent and Dietmar have both noted this and Peter posted
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/172595576232.2215.18027704125134691219.tip-bot2@tip-bot2/
> > > > > in response but it was pulled out since Luis reported observing -ve
> > > > > values for h_nr_delayed on his setup. A lot has been fixed around
> > > > > delayed dequeue since and I wonder if now would be the right time to
> > > > > re-attempt h_nr_delayed tracking.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, it's something I meant to get back to. I think the patch as posted
> > > > was actually right and it didn't work for Luis because of some other,
> > > > since fixed issue.
> > > >
> > > > But I might be misremembering things. I'll get to it eventually :/
> > >
> > > Sorry for the late reply, I got sidetracked on something else.
> > >
> > > There have been a few power regressions (based on our Pixel6-based testing) due
> > > to the delayed-dequeue series.
> > >
> > > The main one drove the frequencies up due to an imbalance in the uclamp inc/dec
> > > handling. That has since been fixed by "[PATCH 10/24] sched/uclamg: Handle delayed dequeue". [1]
> > >
> > > The bug also made it so disabling DELAY_DEQUEUE at runtime didn't fix things, because the
> > > imbalance/stale state would be perpetuated. Disabling DELAY_DEQUEUE before boot did fix things.
> > >
> > > So power use was brought down by the above fix, but some issues still remained, like the
> > > accounting issues with h_nr_running and not taking sched_delayed tasks into account.
> > >
> > > Dietmar addressed some of it with "kernel/sched: Fix util_est accounting for DELAY_DEQUEUE". [2]
> > >
> > > Peter sent another patch to add accounting for sched_delayed tasks [3]. Though the patch was
> > > mostly correct, under some circumstances [4] we spotted imbalances in the sched_delayed
> > > accounting that slowly drove frequencies up again.
> > >
> > > If I recall correctly, Peter has pulled that particular patch from the tree, but we should
> > > definitely revisit it with a proper fix for the imbalance. Suggestion in [5].
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240727105029.315205425@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c49ef5fe-a909-43f1-b02f-a765ab9cedbf@xxxxxxx/
> > > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/172595576232.2215.18027704125134691219.tip-bot2@tip-bot2/
> > > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6df12fde-1e0d-445f-8f8a-736d11f9ee41@xxxxxxx/
> > > [5] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6df12fde-1e0d-445f-8f8a-736d11f9ee41@xxxxxxx/
> >
> > Thanks for the replies. We are trying to disable DELAY_DEQUEUE and
> > recollect the data to see if that's the cause. We'll get back to this
> > thread once we have some data.
> >
> > -Saravana
>
> The test data is back to pre-EEVDF state with DELAY_DEQUEUE disabled.
>
> Same test example from before, when thread is affined to the big cluster:
> +----------------------------------+
> | Data            | Enabled | Disabled |
> |-----------------------+----------|
> | 5th percentile  | 96     | 143    |
> |-----------------------+----------|
> | Median          | 144    | 147   |
> |-----------------------+----------|
> | Mean            | 134    | 147   |
> |-----------------------+----------|
> | 95th percentile | 150    | 150   |
> +----------------------------------+
>
> What are the next steps to bring this behavior back? Will DELAY_DEQUEUE always
> be enabled by default and/or is there a fix coming for 6.12?

DELAY_DEQUEUE should be enabled by default from v6.12 but there are a
few fixes for the same in-flight. Could try running with the changes
from [1] and [2] and see if you could reproduce the behavior and if
you can, is it equally bad?

Both changes apply cleanly for me on top of current

    git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/core

at commit fe9beaaa802d ("sched: No PREEMPT_RT=y for all{yes,mod}config")
when applied in that order.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/172595576232.2215.18027704125134691219.tip-bot2@tip-bot2/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/750542452c4f852831e601e1b8de40df4b108d9a.camel@xxxxxx/

> Thanks,
> Sam

--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek