Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> I have done some runs with the proposed fixes added:
> 
> 1. PeterZ's util_sum shift fix (change util_sum).
> 2. Morten's scaling of weight instead of time (reduce bit loss).
> 3. PeterZ's unconditional calls to arch*() functions (compiler opt).
> 
> To be clear: 2 includes 1, and 3 includes 1 and 2.
> 
> Runs where done with the default (#define) implementation of the
> arch-functions and with arch specific implementation for ARM.


> Results:
> 
> perf numbers are average of three (x10) runs. Raw data is available
> further down.
> 
> ARM TC2		#mul		#mul_all	perf bench
> arch*()		default	arm	default	arm	default	arm
> 
> 1 shift_fix		10	16	22	36	13.401	13.288
> 2 scaled_weight	12	14	30	32	13.282	13.238
> 3 unconditional	12	14	26	32	13.296	13.427
> 
> Intel E5-2690		#mul		#mul_all	perf bench
> arch*()		default		default		default
> 
> 1 shift_fix		13				14.786
> 2 scaled_weight	18				15.078
> 3 unconditional	14				15.195
> 
> 
> Overall it appears that fewer 'mul' instructions doesn't necessarily
> mean better perf bench score. For ARM, 2 seems the best choice overall.

I suspect you're paying for having to do an actual load which can miss
there. So that makes sense.

> While 1 is better for Intel.

Right, because GCC shits itself with those conditionals. Weirdly though;
the below version does not seem so affected.

> I suggest that I spin a v2 of this series and go with scaled_weight to
> reduce bit loss. Any objections?

Just playing devils advocate to myself; how about cgroups? Will not a
per-cpu share of the cgroup weight often be very small?


So I had a little play, and I'm not at all convinced we want to do this
(I've not actually ran any numbers on it, but I can well imagine the
extra condition to hurt on branch miss predict) but it does show GCC
need not always get confused.

---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 9176f7c588a8..1b60fbe3b86c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -2519,7 +2519,25 @@ static u32 __compute_runnable_contrib(u64 n)
 #error "load tracking assumes 2^10 as unit"
 #endif
 
-#define cap_scale(v, s) ((v)*(s) >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT)
+static __always_inline unsigned long fp_mult2(unsigned long x, unsigned long y)
+{
+	y *= x;
+	y >>= 10;
+
+	return y;
+}
+
+static __always_inline unsigned long fp_mult3(unsigned long x, unsigned long y, unsigned long z)
+{
+	if (x > y)
+		swap(x,y);
+
+	z *= y;
+	z >>= 10;
+	z *= x;
+
+	return z;
+}
 
 /*
  * We can represent the historical contribution to runnable average as the
@@ -2553,9 +2571,9 @@ 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;
+	u64 delta, periods;
 	u32 contrib;
-	unsigned int delta_w, scaled_delta_w, decayed = 0;
+	unsigned int delta_w, decayed = 0;
 	unsigned long scale_freq, scale_cpu;
 
 	delta = now - sa->last_update_time;
@@ -2577,8 +2595,10 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
 		return 0;
 	sa->last_update_time = now;
 
-	scale_freq = arch_scale_freq_capacity(NULL, cpu);
-	scale_cpu = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, cpu);
+	if (weight)
+		scale_freq = arch_scale_freq_capacity(NULL, cpu);
+	if (running)
+		scale_cpu = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, cpu);
 
 	/* delta_w is the amount already accumulated against our next period */
 	delta_w = sa->period_contrib;
@@ -2594,16 +2614,14 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
 		 * period and accrue it.
 		 */
 		delta_w = 1024 - delta_w;
-		scaled_delta_w = cap_scale(delta_w, scale_freq);
 		if (weight) {
-			sa->load_sum += weight * scaled_delta_w;
-			if (cfs_rq) {
-				cfs_rq->runnable_load_sum +=
-						weight * scaled_delta_w;
-			}
+			unsigned long t = fp_mult3(delta_w, weight, scale_freq);
+			sa->load_sum += t;
+			if (cfs_rq)
+				cfs_rq->runnable_load_sum += t;
 		}
 		if (running)
-			sa->util_sum += scaled_delta_w * scale_cpu;
+			sa->util_sum += delta_w * fp_mult2(scale_cpu, scale_freq);
 
 		delta -= delta_w;
 
@@ -2620,25 +2638,25 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg *sa,
 
 		/* Efficiently calculate \sum (1..n_period) 1024*y^i */
 		contrib = __compute_runnable_contrib(periods);
-		contrib = cap_scale(contrib, scale_freq);
 		if (weight) {
-			sa->load_sum += weight * contrib;
+			unsigned long t = fp_mult3(contrib, weight, scale_freq);
+			sa->load_sum += t;
 			if (cfs_rq)
-				cfs_rq->runnable_load_sum += weight * contrib;
+				cfs_rq->runnable_load_sum += t;
 		}
 		if (running)
-			sa->util_sum += contrib * scale_cpu;
+			sa->util_sum += contrib * fp_mult2(scale_cpu, scale_freq);
 	}
 
 	/* Remainder of delta accrued against u_0` */
-	scaled_delta = cap_scale(delta, scale_freq);
 	if (weight) {
-		sa->load_sum += weight * scaled_delta;
+		unsigned long t = fp_mult3(delta, weight, scale_freq);
+		sa->load_sum += t;
 		if (cfs_rq)
-			cfs_rq->runnable_load_sum += weight * scaled_delta;
+			cfs_rq->runnable_load_sum += t;
 	}
 	if (running)
-		sa->util_sum += scaled_delta * scale_cpu;
+		sa->util_sum += delta * fp_mult2(scale_cpu, scale_freq);
 
 	sa->period_contrib += delta;
 
--
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/