[PATCH 1/2] sched/cfs: make util/load_avg more stable

pet...@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- Sorry some unexpected characters appeared in the commit message of previous version kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 ++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/

[PATCH 0/2] sched/cfs: make util/load_avg stable

value instead. Both solutions make load/util_avg being stable with the advantage of using the most up to date value for the 2nd patch. I have split it into 2 patches to show the 2 versions but if the 2nd patch looks ok, we should probably squashed them into one. Vincent Guittot (2): sched/cfs: make

[PATCH 2/2] sched/cfs: take into account current time segment

n load/util_sum, we update the max value according to the current position in the time segment instead of removing its contribution. Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/

[PATCH 2/2] sched/cfs: take into account current time segment

n load/util_sum, we update the max value according to the current position in the time segment instead of removing its contribution. Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/

Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] arm: fix return value of parse_cpu_capacity

ty: failed to allocate > memory for raw capacities\n"); > cap_parsing_failed = true; > - return !ret; > + return 0; Acked-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaor.org> > } > } > capacity_scale = max(cpu_capacity, capacity_scale); > -- > 2.10.0 >

[PATCH 1/2] sched/cfs: make util/load_avg more stable

ot;|browse confirm w|else|confirm w|endif Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 ++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/k

[PATCH 0/2] sched/cfs: make util/load_avg stable

value instead. Both solutions make load/util_avg being stable with the advantage of using the most up to date value for the 2nd patch. I have split it into 2 patches to show the 2 versions but if the 2nd patch looks ok, we should probably squashed them into one. Vincent Guittot (2): sched/cfs: make

Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: update scale invariance of PELT

On 14 April 2017 at 10:49, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 13 April 2017 at 18:13, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 05:16:20PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>> On 13 April 2017 at 15:39, Peter Zijlstr

[PATCH v2] sched/cfs: make util/load_avg more stable

he max value according to the current position in the time segment instead of removing its contribution. Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- Fold both patches in one kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++---

Re: [PATCH 0/6] cpufreq: schedutil: fixes for flags updates

On 2 March 2017 at 16:45, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > The current version of schedutil has some issues related to the management > of update flags used by systems with frequency domains spawning multiple CPUs. > > Each time a CPU utilisation update is issued by the scheduler

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Avoid decreasing frequency of busy CPUs

On 21 March 2017 at 18:00, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 21 March 2017 at 15:58, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 03:16:19PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > On 21 March 2017 at 15:03,

Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate

On 9 August 2017 at 19:51, Joel Fernandes <joe...@google.com> wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Vincent Guittot > <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote: > >>> >>> Yes this is true, however since I'm using the 'delta' instead of

[PATCH] sched/pelt: fix false running accounting in PELT

Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- kernel/sched/fair.c | 18 ++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index 008c514..5fdcb42 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @

Re: [PATCH] sched/pelt: fix false running accounting in PELT

On 30 June 2017 at 15:58, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote: > The running state is a subset of runnable state which means that running > can't be set if runnable (weight) is cleared. There are corner cases > where the current sched_entity has been already dequ

[PATCH v2] sched/pelt: fix false running accounting

Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- kernel/sched/fair.c | 12 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index 008c514..bc36a75 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @

Re: [PATCH v2] sched/pelt: fix false running accounting

On 4 July 2017 at 11:44, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 11:12:34AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 4 July 2017 at 10:34, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 09:27:07AM +0200, Peter Zij

Re: [PATCH v2] sched/pelt: fix false running accounting

On 4 July 2017 at 09:27, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 07:06:13AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> The running state is a subset of runnable state which means that running >> can't be set if runnable (weight) is cleared. There are

Re: [PATCH v2] sched/pelt: fix false running accounting

On 4 July 2017 at 10:34, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 09:27:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 07:06:13AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > The running state is a subset of runnable state which means

Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: attach extra runtime to the right avg

Hi Josef, On 30 June 2017 at 03:56, wrote: > From: Josef Bacik > > We only track the load avg of a se in 1024 ns chunks, so in order to > make up for the loss of the < 1024 ns part of a run/sleep delta we only > add the time we processed to the

Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] interconnect: Add generic interconnect controller API

Hi Georgi, On 27 June 2017 at 19:49, Georgi Djakov wrote: [snip] > + > +static int interconnect_aggregate(struct interconnect_node *node, > + struct interconnect_creq *creq) > +{ > + int ret = 0; > + > +

[PATCH v3] sched/cfs: make util/load_avg more stable

he max value according to the current position in the time segment instead of removing its contribution. Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- Changes: -Correct typo in commit message: s/MAX_LOAD_AVG/LOAD_A

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 25 April 2017 at 23:08, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:49:41AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: >> > I have run a quick test with your patches and schbench on my platform. >> > I haven't been able to reproduce your regression but my platform is >> > quite different from

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 24 April 2017 at 22:14, Tejun Heo wrote: > We noticed that with cgroup CPU controller in use, the scheduling > > Note the drastic increase in p99 scheduling latency. After > investigation, it turned out that the update_sd_lb_stats(), which is > used by load_balance() to pick

Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Fix how load gets propagated from cfs_rq to its sched_entity

Le Tuesday 25 Apr 2017 à 11:12:19 (-0700), Tejun Heo a écrit : > Hello, > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:35:53AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > not sure to catch your example: > > a task TA with a load_avg = 1 is the only task in a task group GB so > >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Fix how load gets propagated from cfs_rq to its sched_entity

onal and keeps the > parent's runnable_load_avg true to the sum of scaled loads of all > tasks queued under it which is critical for the correction operation > of load balancer. The next patch will depend on it. > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> > Cc: Vincent Guit

Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Fix how load gets propagated from cfs_rq to its sched_entity

On 27 April 2017 at 00:40, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 06:51:23PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > It's not temporary. The weight of a group is its shares, which is its >> > load fraction of the configured

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 27 April 2017 at 00:52, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:12:09PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 24 April 2017 at 22:14, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: >> Can the problem be on the load balance side instead ? an

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 27 April 2017 at 02:30, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, Vincent. > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:21:52PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > This is from the follow-up patch. I was confused. Because we don't >> > propagate decays, we still s

Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Fix how load gets propagated from cfs_rq to its sched_entity

On 27 April 2017 at 00:27, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, Vincent. > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > + if (gcfs_rq->load.weight) { >> > + long shares = calc_cfs_shares(gcfs_rq, gcfs_rq-

Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Fix how load gets propagated from cfs_rq to its sched_entity

correction operation > of load balancer. The next patch will depend on it. > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> > Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@redhat.com> > Cc: Peter Zijl

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

entiles (usec) > 50.th: 40 > 75.th: 71 > 90.th: 89 > 95.th: 108 > *99.th: 679 > 99.5000th: 3500 > 99.9000th: 10960 > min=0, max=13790 > > [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/k

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 25 April 2017 at 10:46, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 24 April 2017 at 22:14, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: >> We noticed that with cgroup CPU controller in use, the scheduling >> latency gets wonky regardless of nesting level

Re: [PATCH v2] sched/cfs: make util/load_avg more stable

On 25 April 2017 at 13:05, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote: > On 19/04/17 17:54, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> In the current implementation of load/util_avg, we assume that the ongoing >> time segment has fully elapsed, and util/load_sum is divided by LOAD_AVG

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 25 April 2017 at 11:05, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 25 April 2017 at 10:46, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 24 April 2017 at 22:14, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: >>> We noticed that with cgroup C

[PATCH v3] sched/fair: update scale invariance of PELT

tilization, decreases from 223ms with current scale invariance down to 121ms with the new algorithm. For this test, i have enable arch_scale_freq for arm64. Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- Change since v3 - Add comments - With patch ("sched/cfs: make util/load_av

Re: [PATCH v2] sched/cfs: make util/load_avg more stable

On 25 April 2017 at 16:53, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote: > On 25/04/17 13:40, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 25 April 2017 at 13:05, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote: >>> On 19/04/17 17:54, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>>

Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate

On 9 August 2017 at 01:11, Joel Fernandes <joe...@google.com> wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Vincent Guittot > <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote: >> Hi Joel, >> >> On 4 August 2017 at 17:40, Joel Fernandes <joe...@google.

Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 1/2] sched/rt: add utilization tracking

On 7 August 2017 at 18:44, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 03:40:21PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >> There were several comments on v1: >> - As raised by Peter for v1, if IRQ time is taken into account in >> rt_avg,

Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Make PELT signal more accurate

d to the inaccuracy I agree that there is an inaccuracy (the max absolute value of 22) but that's in favor of less overhead. Have you seen wrong behavior because of this inaccuracy ? > > With the patch, the error in the signal is significantly reduced, and is > non-existent beyond a s

[RESEND PATCH v2 1/2] sched/rt: add utilization tracking

mecanism. We don't use rt_avg which doesn't have the same dynamic as PELT and which can include IRQ time. Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- Change since v1: - rebase on tip/sched/core There were several comments on v1: - As raised by Peter for v1, if IRQ time is

[RESEND PATCH v2 0/2] sched/rt: track rt rq utilization

version in patch 1/2 Vincent Guittot (2): sched/rt: add utilization tracking cpufreq/schedutil: add rt utilization tracking kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 2 +- kernel/sched/fair.c | 21 + kernel/sched/rt.c| 9 + kernel/sched

[RESEND PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq/schedutil: add rt utilization tracking

Add both cfs and rt utilization when selecting an OPP as rt can preempt and steal cfs's running time. Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel

Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: update scale invariance of PELT

d yet. > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:18:29AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > The current implementation of load tracking invariance scales the > > contribution with current frequency and uarch performance (only for > > utilization) of the CPU. One main result of this

Re: [PATCH v2 for-4.12-fixes 2/2] sched/fair: Fix O(# total cgroups) in load balance path

Hi Tejun, On 10 May 2017 at 16:44, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 08:50:14AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 9 May 2017 at 18:18, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: >> > Currently, rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list is a

Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Peter's shares_type patch

On 10 May 2017 at 17:09, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Vincent. > > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:30:31AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: >> > For shares_runnable, it should be >> > >> > group_entity->runnable_load_avg = cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg * >> > group_entity->avg.load_avg /

Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/14] sched/fair: Remove se->load.weight from se->avg.load_sum

Hi Peter, On 12 May 2017 at 18:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Remove the load from the load_sum for sched_entities, basically > turning load_sum into runnable_sum. This prepares for better > reweighting of group entities. > > Since we now have different rules for computing

Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: Interrupt Aware Scheduler

On 12 May 2017 at 22:19, Rohit Jain wrote: > On 05/12/2017 12:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:04:26AM -0700, Rohit Jain wrote: >>> >>> The patch avoids CPUs which might be considered interrupt-heavy when >>> trying to schedule threads (on the

Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/14] sched/fair: Remove se->load.weight from se->avg.load_sum

Le Wednesday 17 May 2017 à 09:04:47 (+0200), Vincent Guittot a écrit : > Hi Peter, > > On 12 May 2017 at 18:44, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > Remove the load from the load_sum for sched_entities, basically > > turning load_sum into runnable_sum

Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/14] sched/fair: Change update_load_avg() arguments

On 12 May 2017 at 18:44, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > Most call sites of update_load_avg() already have cfs_rq_of(se) > available, pass it down instead of recomputing it. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org> Acked-by: Vince

Re: [PATCH v2 for-4.12-fixes 2/2] sched/fair: Fix O(# total cgroups) in load balance path

On 12 May 2017 at 15:16, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, Vincent. > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 09:02:22AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> Sorry, what i mean is: >> When the group entity of a cfs_rq is enqueued, we are sure that either >>

Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/14] sched/fair: Clean up calc_cfs_shares()

On 12 May 2017 at 18:44, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > For consistencies sake, we should have only a single reading of > tg->shares. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org> Acked-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH v2 for-4.12-fixes 2/2] sched/fair: Fix O(# total cgroups) in load balance path

Hi Tejun, On 9 May 2017 at 18:18, Tejun Heo wrote: > Currently, rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list is a traversal ordered list of all > live cfs_rqs which have ever been active on the CPU; unfortunately, > this makes update_blocked_averages() O(# total cgroups) which isn't > scalable at all.

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] thermal/cpu idle cooling: Introduce cpu idle cooling driver

Hi Kevin, On 5 June 2017 at 11:07, Tao Wang wrote: > cpu idle cooling driver performs synchronized idle injection across > all cpu in same cluster, offers a new method to cooling down cpu, > that is similar to intel_power_clamp driver, but is basically > designed for

Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: wire cpu-invariant accounting support up to the task scheduler

/sched/sched.h. > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> > Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> Acked-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH 1/6] drivers base/arch_topology: prepare cpufreq policy notifier for frequency-invariant load-tracking support

ue. > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> > Cc: Russell King <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> > Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> Acked-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH 3/6] arm: wire frequency-invariant accounting support up to the task scheduler

; > Cc: Russell King <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> > Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> Acked-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 5 + > arch/

Re: [PATCH 5/6] arm64: wire frequency-invariant accounting support up to the task scheduler

gt; > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> > Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> Acked-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH 4/6] arm: wire cpu-invariant accounting support up to the task scheduler

n > kernel/sched/sched.h. > > Cc: Russell King <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> > Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> Acked-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm/include/asm/topology.

Re: [PATCH 2/6] drivers base/arch_topology: frequency-invariant load-tracking support

On 8 June 2017 at 09:55, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > Implements an arch-specific frequency-scaling function > topology_get_freq_scale() which provides the following frequency > scaling factor: > > current_freq(cpu) << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT / max_supported_freq(cpu) > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 06/14] sched/fair: Move enqueue migrate handling

fs_rq averages up-to-date (which means having done > the attach), but we need the cfs_rq->avg.runnable_avg to not yet > include the se's contribution (since se->on_rq == 0). > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org> Acked-by: Vincent Guit

Re: [lkp-robot] [sched/cfs] 625ed2bf04: unixbench.score -7.4% regression

On 19 May 2017 at 08:07, kernel test robot wrote: > > Greeting, > > FYI, we noticed a -7.4% regression of unixbench.score due to commit: That's interesting because it's just the opposite of what I received 4 days ago for unixbench shell1 test. I'm going to have a look:

[PATCH 0/2] track rt rq utilization

utilization and take it into account when selecting OPP. Patch 1 tracks utilization of rt_rq. Patch 2 adds the rt_rq's utilization when selection OPP for cfs tasks This patchset doesn't change the OPP selection policy for RT tasks Vincent Guittot (2): sched/rt: add utilization tracking cpufreq

[RFC PATCH 1/2] sched/rt: add utilization tracking

mecanism. We don't use rt_avg which doesn't have the same dynamic as PELT and which can include IRQ time that are also accounted in cfs task utilization Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- If the changes are reasonnable, it might worth moving the PELT fu

[PATCH 2/2] cpufreq/schedutil: add rt utilization tracking

Add both cfs_rq and rt_rq's utilization when selecting an OPP for cfs task as rt task can preempt and steal cfs's running time. This prevent frequency drops when rt tasks steal running time to cfs tasks which appear lower than they are. Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] sched/rt: add utilization tracking

On 31 May 2017 at 11:40, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> schedutil governor relies on cfs_rq's util_avg to choose the OPP when cfs >> tasks are running. When the CPU is overloaded by cfs an

Re: [RFC v1 1/3] interconnect: Add generic interconnect controller API

On 15 May 2017 at 17:35, Georgi Djakov wrote: > This patch introduce a new API to get the requirement and configure the > interconnect buses across the entire chipset to fit with the current demand. > > The API is using a consumer/provider-based model, where the

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] thermal/cpu idle cooling: Introduce cpu idle cooling driver

On 8 June 2017 at 14:59, Jean Wangtao <jean.wang...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > 2017年6月8日 下午3:19，"Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>写道： > > Hi Kevin, > > On 5 June 2017 at 11:07, Tao Wang <kevin.wang...@hisilicon.com> wro

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] thermal/cpu idle cooling: Introduce cpu idle cooling driver

On 14 June 2017 at 14:55, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 08:00:28PM +0200, Jean Wangtao wrote: >> On 9 June 2017 at 10:20, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 09:11:35AM +0530, viresh kumar wrote: >> > > +

Re: [PATCH 2/6] drivers base/arch_topology: frequency-invariant load-tracking support

On 14 June 2017 at 09:55, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote: > > On 06/12/2017 04:27 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On 8 June 2017 at 09:55, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > Thanks for the review! > >

[PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq/schedutil: add rt utilization tracking

add both cfs and rt utilization when selecting an OPP as rt can preempt and steal cfs's running time --- kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c :if expand("%") ==

[PATCH v2 1/2] sched/rt: add utilization tracking

mecanism. We don't use rt_avg which doesn't have the same dynamic as PELT and which can include IRQ time. Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- Change since v1: - rebase on tip/sched/core There were several comments on v1: - As raised by Peter for v1, if IRQ time is

[PATCH v2 0/2] sched/rt: track rt rq utilization

version in patch 1/2 Vincent Guittot (2): sched/rt: add utilization tracking cpufreq/schedutil: add rt utilization tracking kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 2 +- kernel/sched/fair.c | 21 + kernel/sched/rt.c| 9 + kernel/sched

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 3 May 2017 at 23:49, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 03:09:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 12:37:37PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > On 3 May 2017 at 11:37, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Fix how load gets propagated from cfs_rq to its sched_entity

Le Wednesday 03 May 2017 à 20:00:28 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit : > [snip] > > Just FUDGE2 on its own seems to be the best on my system and is a change > that makes sense (and something Paul recently pointed out as well). > > The implementation isn't particularly pretty or fast, but

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 28 April 2017 at 18:14, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Vincent. > >> >> The only interest of runnable_load_avg is to be null when a cfs_rq is >> idle whereas load_avg is not but not to be higher than load_avg. The >> root cause is that load_balance only looks at "load" but not

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 28 April 2017 at 22:33, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, Vincent. > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:29:10AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 27 April 2017 at 00:52, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > On

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

Hi Tejun, On 2 May 2017 at 23:50, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:18:53AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > dbg_odd: odd: dst=28 idle=2 brk=32 lbtgt=0-31 type=2 >> > dbg_odd_dump: A: grp=1,17 w=2 avg=7.247

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 2 May 2017 at 22:56, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, Vincent. > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 08:56:52AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 28 April 2017 at 18:14, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: >> > I'll follow up in the other subth

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 3 May 2017 at 09:25, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 2 May 2017 at 22:56, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: >> Hello, Vincent. >> >> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 08:56:52AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>> On 28 April 2017 a

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 3 May 2017 at 11:37, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 09:34:51AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > We use load_avg for calculating a stable share and we want to use it > > more and more. So breaking it becaus

Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Peter's shares_type patch

On 4 May 2017 at 22:29, Tejun Heo wrote: > From: Peter Zijlstra > > This patch is combination of > > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170502081905.ga4...@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net > + >

Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Propagate runnable_load_avg independently from load_avg

With the patch applied, the p99 latency from inside a cgroup is > equivalent to the root cgroup case. > > # ~/schbench -m 2 -t 16 -s 1 -c 15000 -r 30 > Latency percentiles (usec) > 50.th: 40 > 75.th: 71 > 90.th: 89 > 95.t

Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Propagate runnable_load_avg independently from load_avg

On 5 May 2017 at 12:42, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 4 May 2017 at 22:30, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: >> We noticed that with cgroup CPU controller in use, the scheduling >> latency gets wonky regardless of nesting level

Re: [RFC PATCHSET v2] sched/fair: fix load balancer behavior when cgroup is in use

Hi Tejun, On 4 May 2017 at 22:28, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > v1 posting can be found at > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170424201344.ga14...@wtj.duckdns.org > > The patchset is still RFC and based on v4.11. I used Peter's updated > calc_cfs_shares() instead of scaling

Re: [RFC PATCHSET v2] sched/fair: fix load balancer behavior when cgroup is in use

On 5 May 2017 at 15:28, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, Vincent. > > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 10:46:53AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> schbench results looks better with this version >> Latency percentiles (usec) >> 50.th: 212 >> 75.th:

Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Propagate runnable_load_avg independently from load_avg

On 4 May 2017 at 22:30, Tejun Heo wrote: [snip] > /* Take into account change of load of a child task group */ > static inline void > update_tg_cfs_load(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se) > @@ -3120,17 +3144,6 @@ update_tg_cfs_load(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq >

Re: [PATCH] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: use now as reference when aggregating shared policy requests

> > Fix the problem by always considering now (time) as the reference for > deciding when CPUs have stale contributions. > > Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> FWIW Acked-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Fix how load gets propagated from cfs_rq to its sched_entity

On 28 April 2017 at 19:46, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, Vincent. > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:59:12AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > But the only difference there is that we lose accuracy in calculation; >> > otherwise, the end results ar

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

Hi Tejun, Le Tuesday 02 May 2017 à 09:18:53 (+0200), Vincent Guittot a écrit : > On 28 April 2017 at 22:33, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > > Hello, Vincent. > > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:29:10AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >> On 27 April 2017

Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: update scale invariance of PELT

On 1 May 2017 at 11:00, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:09:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:18:29AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h >> > @@ -3

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

Hi Tejun, On 4 May 2017 at 19:43, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:19:46AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > schbench inside a cgroup and have some base load, it is actually >> > expected to show worse latency

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] sched/rt: add utilization tracking

On 30 May 2017 at 17:50, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmus...@arm.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> schedutil governor relies on cfs_rq's util_avg to choose the OPP when cfs >> tasks are running. When the CPU is overloaded by

Re: [PATCH -v2 12/18] sched/fair: Rewrite PELT migration propagation

On 9 October 2017 at 17:03, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 1 September 2017 at 15:21, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: >> When an entity migrates in (or out) of a runqueue, we need to add (or >> remove) its

Re: [PATCH -v2 12/18] sched/fair: Rewrite PELT migration propagation

On 10 October 2017 at 09:29, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 05:29:04PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 9 October 2017 at 17:03, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >> > On 1 Septembe

Re: [PATCH -v2 12/18] sched/fair: Rewrite PELT migration propagation

Hi Peter, On 1 September 2017 at 15:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > When an entity migrates in (or out) of a runqueue, we need to add (or > remove) its contribution from the entire PELT hierarchy, because even > non-runnable entities are included in the load average sums. > >

Re: [PATCH -v2 12/18] sched/fair: Rewrite PELT migration propagation

On 13 October 2017 at 22:41, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 05:22:54PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> >> I have studied a bit more how to improve the propagation formula and the >> changes below is doing the job for the UCs that

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] arm: topology: remove cpu_efficiency

city-dmips-mhz' based solution is now the only one. It is > shared between arm and arm64 and works for every big.LITTLE system no > matter which core types it consists of. > > Cc: Russell King <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> > Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> >

Re: [PATCH -v2 12/18] sched/fair: Rewrite PELT migration propagation

Hi Peter, Le Tuesday 10 Oct 2017 à 09:44:53 (+0200), Vincent Guittot a écrit : > On 10 October 2017 at 09:29, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 05:29:04PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >> On 9 October 2017 at 17:03, Vince

Re: [PATCH -v2 12/18] sched/fair: Rewrite PELT migration propagation

Hi Peter, Le Friday 13 Oct 2017 à 22:41:11 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit : > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 05:22:54PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > I have studied a bit more how to improve the propagation formula and the > > changes below is doing the job for the U

Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm: topology: remove cpu_efficiency

On 6 September 2017 at 13:43, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > On 04/09/17 08:49, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> Hi Dietmar, >> >> Removing cpu effificiency table looks good to me. Nevertheless, i have >> some comments below fo

<    6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   >