Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1492537
| From | Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue |
| Date | 2016-09-28 13:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <smlnr-63p-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <skxj3-38t-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <smk82-5oX-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <smkUp-5Ue-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sml45-5Xs-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
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: [...] >> Not sure what you mean by 'after fixing' but the se is initialized with >> a possibly stale 'now' value in post_init_entity_util_avg()-> >> attach_entity_load_avg() before the clock is updated in >> activate_task()->enqueue_task(). > > I meant that after I fix the above issue of calling post_init with a > stale clock. So the + update_rq_clock(rq) in the patch. OK. [...] >>> While staring at this, I don't think we can still hit >>> vruntime_normalized() with a new task, so I _think_ we can remove that >>> !se->sum_exec_runtime clause there (and rejoice), no? >> >> I'm afraid that with accurate timing we will get the same situation that >> we add and subtract the same amount of load (probably 1024 now and not >> 1002 (or less)) to/from cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg for the initial (fork) >> hackbench run. >> After all, it's 'runnable' based. > > The idea was that since we now update rq clock before post_init and then > leave it be, both post_init and enqueue see the exact same timestamp, > and the delta is 0, resulting in no aging. > > Or did I fail to make that happen? No, but IMHO what Matt wants is ageing for the hackench tasks at the end of their fork phase so there is a tiny amount of cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg left on cpuX after the fork related dequeue so the (load-based) fork-balancer chooses cpuY for the next hackbench task. That's why he wanted to avoid the __update_load_avg(se) on enqueue (thus adding 1024 to cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg) and do the ageing only on dequeue (removing <1024 from cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg).
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-28 12:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> - 2016-09-28 13:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-28 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> - 2016-09-28 13:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-09-28 13:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-09-28 14:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-10-04 23:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-10-04 22:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-09-28 14:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-09-28 15:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> - 2016-09-29 18:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-10-03 15:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> - 2016-09-28 20:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 21:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-09-30 22:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 05:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-10-10 12:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 12:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-10-11 12:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-10-10 14:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> - 2016-10-10 16:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-10-10 20:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> - 2016-10-11 11:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-10-11 12:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-10-10 19:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-10-11 12:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-10-11 15:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-10-11 21:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-10-12 09:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-10-04 22:20 +0200
csiph-web