Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1709095
| From | Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate |
| Date | 2017-08-11 01:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ud4U9-49W-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <uaN1n-rA-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <ubQzU-s0-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi Peter, On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:40:23AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> The PELT signal (sa->load_avg and sa->util_avg) are not updated if the >> amount accumulated during a single update doesn't cross a period >> boundary. > >> This is fine in cases where the amount accrued is much smaller than >> the size of a single PELT window (1ms) however if the amount accrued >> is high then the relative error (calculated against what the actual >> signal would be had we updated the averages) can be quite high - as >> much 3-6% in my testing. > > The max accumulate we can have and not cross a boundary is 1023*1024 ns. > At which point we get a divisor of LOAD_AVG_MAX - 1024 + 1023. > > So for util_sum we'd have a increase of 1023*1024/(47742-1) = ~22. Which > on the total signal for util (1024) is ~2.1% > > Where does the 3-6% come from? > >> Inorder to fix this, this patch does the average update by also >> checking how much time has elapsed since the last update and update >> the averages if it has been long enough (as a threshold I chose >> 128us). > > This of course does the divisions more often; anything on performance > impact? I ran hackbench and as such I don't see any degradation in performance. # while [ 1 ]; do hackbench 5 thread 500; done Running with 5*40 (== 200) tasks. without: Time: 0.742 Time: 0.770 Time: 0.857 Time: 0.809 Time: 0.721 Time: 0.725 Time: 0.717 Time: 0.699 with: Time: 0.787 Time: 0.816 Time: 0.744 Time: 0.832 Time: 0.798 Time: 0.785 Time: 0.714 Time: 0.721 If there's any other benchmark or anything different in this test you'd like me to run, let me know, thanks. Regards, Joel
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> - 2017-08-04 17:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2017-08-07 15:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> - 2017-08-09 01:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2017-08-09 12:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> - 2017-08-09 20:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2017-08-10 09:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-08-10 12:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> - 2017-08-10 17:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-08-07 15:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> - 2017-08-09 01:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> - 2017-08-11 01:20 +0200
Re: [lkp-robot] [sched/fair] dca93994f6: unixbench.score -8.1% regression Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> - 2017-08-11 18:00 +0200
csiph-web