Messages in this thread | | | From | Vincent Guittot <> | Date | Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:28:19 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] Optimize sched avgs computation and implement flat util hierarchy |
| |
On 23 August 2016 at 01:26, Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Peter and others, > > Could you give this patchset a look?
Hi Yuyang,
I still wonder if using a flat util hierarchy is the right solution to solve this problem with utilization and task group. I have noticed exact same issues with load that generates weird task placement decision and i think that we should probably try to solve both wrong behavior with same mechanism. but this is not possible with flat hierarchy for load
Let me take an example. TA is a always running task on CPU1 in group /root/level1/ TB wakes up on CPU0 and moves TA into group /root/level2/ Even if TA stays on CPU1, runnable_load_avg of CPU1 root cfs rq will become 0. Then, TB forks a new task TC. TC will probably be schedule on CPU1 because its root cfs_rq's runnable_load_avg is null and CPU1 is the next CPU after CPU0
Similar behavior can happen when TA migrates
Beside flat utilization consideration, i'm going to have a look at the optimization part
Regards, Vincent
> > > Thanks, > Yuyang > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:23:52AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:14:45AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > I should have sent out my flat util hierarchy implementation long time ago, > > > actually code was there but not rebased. I finally have time to do this, > > > so here it is. There are also other proposals to solve migrated tasks' util > > > mobility problem, such as the ones from Dietmar and Vincent. > > > > > > The sched avgs computation optimization was initiated for the flat util thing, > > > so I send them out together. > > > > > > According to Morten and Ben's feedback, I removed 32-bit as a period's upper > > > bound limit. So, thanks a lot to them. > > > > > > > To compare the effectiveness of the flat util hierarchy, a simple experiment > > was done: rt-app to generate a 50% duty-cycling workload (100us/200us), and > > in the meantime a script to set the CPU affinity of the task, alternating > > to taskset the task to run on CPU x and CPU y every 0.3 sec, so forcing the > > task to ping-pong migrate. By auto-group and ssh itself, the task under test > > is at the third level task group. > > > > So compare the top cfs_rq's util_avg (group_hierarchy.jpg) vs. the rq's util_avg > > (flat_hierarchy.jpg) > > > > Thanks, > > Yuyang > > >
| |