Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1389971 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] sched/fair: Remove scale_load_down() for load_avg

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] sched/fair: Remove scale_load_down() for load_avg Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-04-28 12:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] sched/fair: Remove scale_load_down() for load_avg Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com> - 2016-04-28 12:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] sched/fair: Remove scale_load_down() for load_avg Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com> - 2016-04-29 05:20 +0200

#1389971 — Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] sched/fair: Remove scale_load_down() for load_avg

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:12:29PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> Currently, load_avg = scale_load_down(load) * runnable%. The extra scaling
> down of load does not make much sense, because load_avg is primarily THE
> load and on top of that, we take runnable time into account.
> 
> We therefore remove scale_load_down() for load_avg. But we need to
> carefully consider the overflow risk if load has higher range
> (2*SCHED_FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT). The only case an overflow may occur due
> to us is on 64bit kernel with increased load range. In that case,
> the 64bit load_sum can afford 4251057 (=2^64/47742/88761/1024)
> entities with the highest load (=88761*1024) always runnable on one
> single cfs_rq, which may be an issue, but should be fine. Even if this
> occurs at the end of day, on the condition where it occurs, the
> load average will not be useful anyway.

I do feel we need a little more words on the actual ramification of
overflowing here.

Yes, having 4m tasks on a single runqueue will be somewhat unlikely, but
if it happens, then what will the user experience? How long (if ever)
does it take for numbers to correct themselves etc..

> Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
> [update calculate_imbalance]
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>

This SoB Chain suggests you wrote it and Vincent send it on, yet this
email is from you and Vincent isn't anywhere. Something's not right.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1390028

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:12:29PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > Currently, load_avg = scale_load_down(load) * runnable%. The extra scaling
> > down of load does not make much sense, because load_avg is primarily THE
> > load and on top of that, we take runnable time into account.
> > 
> > We therefore remove scale_load_down() for load_avg. But we need to
> > carefully consider the overflow risk if load has higher range
> > (2*SCHED_FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT). The only case an overflow may occur due
> > to us is on 64bit kernel with increased load range. In that case,
> > the 64bit load_sum can afford 4251057 (=2^64/47742/88761/1024)
> > entities with the highest load (=88761*1024) always runnable on one
> > single cfs_rq, which may be an issue, but should be fine. Even if this
> > occurs at the end of day, on the condition where it occurs, the
> > load average will not be useful anyway.
> 
> I do feel we need a little more words on the actual ramification of
> overflowing here.
> 
> Yes, having 4m tasks on a single runqueue will be somewhat unlikely, but
> if it happens, then what will the user experience? How long (if ever)
> does it take for numbers to correct themselves etc..
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
> > [update calculate_imbalance]
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> 
> This SoB Chain suggests you wrote it and Vincent send it on, yet this
> email is from you and Vincent isn't anywhere. Something's not right.

Since you started to review patches, I just sent you more, :) What a coincidance.

I actually don't know the rules for this SoB, let me learn how to do this
co-signed-off.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1390714

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:12:29PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > Currently, load_avg = scale_load_down(load) * runnable%. The extra scaling
> > down of load does not make much sense, because load_avg is primarily THE
> > load and on top of that, we take runnable time into account.
> > 
> > We therefore remove scale_load_down() for load_avg. But we need to
> > carefully consider the overflow risk if load has higher range
> > (2*SCHED_FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT). The only case an overflow may occur due
> > to us is on 64bit kernel with increased load range. In that case,
> > the 64bit load_sum can afford 4251057 (=2^64/47742/88761/1024)
> > entities with the highest load (=88761*1024) always runnable on one
> > single cfs_rq, which may be an issue, but should be fine. Even if this
> > occurs at the end of day, on the condition where it occurs, the
> > load average will not be useful anyway.
> 
> I do feel we need a little more words on the actual ramification of
> overflowing here.
> 
> Yes, having 4m tasks on a single runqueue will be somewhat unlikely, but
> if it happens, then what will the user experience? How long (if ever)
> does it take for numbers to correct themselves etc..

Well, regarding the experience, this should be a stress test study.

But if the system can miraculously survive, and we end up in the scenario
that we have a ~0ULL load_sum and the rq suddently dropps to 0 load, it
would take roughly 2 seconds (=32ms*64) to converge. This time is the bound.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web