Re: sched: per-entity load-tracking

[Paul Turner]

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-10-06 at 09:39 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Thanks Ingo! Paul,
>
>>  tip/kernel/sched/fair.c |   28 ++++++++++++++++++----------
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: tip/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- tip.orig/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ tip/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>
>> @@ -1151,7 +1156,7 @@ static inline void update_cfs_shares(str
>>   * Note: The tables below are dependent on this value.
>>   */
>>  #define LOAD_AVG_PERIOD 32
>> -#define LOAD_AVG_MAX 47765 /* maximum possible load avg */
>> +#define LOAD_AVG_MAX 47742 /* maximum possible load avg */
>>  #define LOAD_AVG_MAX_N 345 /* number of full periods to produce LOAD_MAX_AVG */
>>
>>  /* Precomputed fixed inverse multiplies for multiplication by y^n */
>> @@ -1203,7 +1208,8 @@ static __always_inline u64 decay_load(u6
>>       }
>>
>>       val *= runnable_avg_yN_inv[local_n];
>> -     return SRR(val, 32);
>> +     /* We don't use SRR here since we always want to round down. */
>> +     return val >> 32;
>>  }
>>
>>  /*
>
> This is from patches/sched-fast_decay.patch and I changed both the
> patch and the changelog to reflect your changes.
>

Yes.   To be sure here there's a similar correction to the table
generator in the changelog, so it's particularly relevant to make sure
that one's included.

I checked your stack and this looks correctly updated.

>
>>@@ -262,6 +262,9 @@ static inline struct cfs_rq *group_cfs_r
>>       return grp->my_q;
>>  }
>>
>> +static void update_cfs_rq_blocked_load(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
>> +                                    int force_update);
>> +
>>  static inline void list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>>  {
>>       if (!cfs_rq->on_list) {
>> @@ -281,6 +284,8 @@ static inline void list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(
>>               }
>>
>>               cfs_rq->on_list = 1;
>> +             /* We should have no load, but we need to update last_decay. */
>> +             update_cfs_rq_blocked_load(cfs_rq, 0);
>>       }
>>  }
>
>
> This seems to have come from patches/sched-cfs_rq_blocked_load.patch, and I merged
> it in there. With subsequent updates in
> patches/sched-wakeup_load.patch. I didn't find any changes to the Changelogs for either.
>
>
>> @@ -4236,13 +4242,15 @@ static void __update_blocked_averages_cp
>>       if (se) {
>>               update_entity_load_avg(se, 1);
>>               /*
>> -              * We can pivot on the runnable average decaying to zero for
>> -              * list removal since the parent average will always be >=
>> -              * child.
>> +              * We pivot on our runnable average having decayed to zero for
>> +              * list removal.  This generally implies that all our children
>> +              * have also been removed (modulo rounding error or bandwidth
>> +              * control); however, such cases are rare and we can fix these
>> +              * at enqueue.
>> +              *
>> +              * TODO: fix up out-of-order children on enqueue.
>>                */
>> -             if (se->avg.runnable_avg_sum)
>> -                     update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq);
>> -             else
>> +             if (!se->avg.runnable_avg_sum && !cfs_rq->nr_running)
>>                       list_del_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
>>       } else {
>>               struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq);
>
>
> This hunk seems to have come from
> patches/sched-swap_update_shares.patch, merged in there, no Changelog
> changes afaict.
>

>
> I've updated my queue (at the usual location:
> http://programming.kicks-ass.net/sekrit/patches.tar.bz2), Paul please
> verify I didn't miss anything.
>
>


Looks good, the only difference I see is:

sched-root_avg.patch
diff -u b/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
--- b/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -5594,10 +5594,10 @@
                entity_tick(cfs_rq, se, queued);
        }

+       update_rq_runnable_avg(rq, 1);
+
        if (sched_feat_numa(NUMA))
                task_tick_numa(rq, curr);
-
-       update_rq_runnable_avg(rq, 1);
 }


Which is a change I agree with; we want task_tick_numa to have
up-to-date stats available to it.


Thanks!

- Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/