Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On 08/10/2017 04:48 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote: On Wed, Aug 09 2017 at 21:22, Atish Patra wrote: On 08/03/2017 10:05 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote: On Thu, Aug 03 2017 at 13:15, Josef Bacik wrote: On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:53:19AM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote: Hi, On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On 08/10/2017 04:48 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote: On Wed, Aug 09 2017 at 21:22, Atish Patra wrote: On 08/03/2017 10:05 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote: On Thu, Aug 03 2017 at 13:15, Josef Bacik wrote: On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:53:19AM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote: Hi, On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Wed, Aug 09 2017 at 21:22, Atish Patra wrote: > On 08/03/2017 10:05 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 03 2017 at 13:15, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:53:19AM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote: Hi, On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at 17:55, Josef Bacik wrote:

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Wed, Aug 09 2017 at 21:22, Atish Patra wrote: > On 08/03/2017 10:05 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 03 2017 at 13:15, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:53:19AM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote: Hi, On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at 17:55, Josef Bacik wrote:

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On 08/03/2017 10:05 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote: On Thu, Aug 03 2017 at 13:15, Josef Bacik wrote: On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:53:19AM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote: Hi, On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at 17:55, Josef Bacik wrote: On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: On Fri,

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On 08/03/2017 10:05 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote: On Thu, Aug 03 2017 at 13:15, Josef Bacik wrote: On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:53:19AM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote: Hi, On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at 17:55, Josef Bacik wrote: On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: On Fri,

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi Michael, Thanks for your reply. On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Michael Wang wrote: > Hi, Joel > > On 07/29/2017 10:13 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> +Michael Wang on his current email address (old one bounced). (my >> reply was to Mike Galbraith but I also meant to

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi Michael, Thanks for your reply. On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Michael Wang wrote: > Hi, Joel > > On 07/29/2017 10:13 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> +Michael Wang on his current email address (old one bounced). (my >> reply was to Mike Galbraith but I also meant to CC Michael Wang for >> the

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Thu, Aug 03 2017 at 13:15, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:53:19AM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at 17:55, Josef Bacik wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 10:28 -0400, Josef

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Thu, Aug 03 2017 at 13:15, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:53:19AM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at 17:55, Josef Bacik wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 10:28 -0400, Josef

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:53:19AM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at 17:55, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 10:28 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:04:59PM

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:53:19AM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at 17:55, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 10:28 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:04:59PM

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi, On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at 17:55, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 10:28 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:04:59PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> > >> > > That makes sense that we multiply

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi, On Fri, Jun 30 2017 at 17:55, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 10:28 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:04:59PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> > >> > > That makes sense that we multiply

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi, Joel On 07/29/2017 10:13 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > +Michael Wang on his current email address (old one bounced). (my > reply was to Mike Galbraith but I also meant to CC Michael Wang for > the discussion). Thanks Just back from vacation and saw this long long discussion... I think guys

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi, Joel On 07/29/2017 10:13 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > +Michael Wang on his current email address (old one bounced). (my > reply was to Mike Galbraith but I also meant to CC Michael Wang for > the discussion). Thanks Just back from vacation and saw this long long discussion... I think guys

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> >> > >> > So why do you care about wake_wide() anyway? Are you observing some >> > problem >> > that you suspect is affected by the affine wakeup stuff? Or are you just >> > trying >> >> I am dealing with an affine

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> >> > >> > So why do you care about wake_wide() anyway? Are you observing some >> > problem >> > that you suspect is affected by the affine wakeup stuff? Or are you just >> > trying >> >> I am dealing with an affine wake up issue, yes. >>

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 14:48 +, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 03:42:25PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 12:21 +, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > > > I've been working in this area recently because of a cpu imbalance > > > problem. > > > Wake_wide()

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 14:48 +, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 03:42:25PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 12:21 +, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > > > I've been working in this area recently because of a cpu imbalance > > > problem. > > > Wake_wide()

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:21:46AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Josef, > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 03:41:56PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Joel Fernandes

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:21:46AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Josef, > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 03:41:56PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > >> > >> Again I didn't

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi Josef, On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 03:41:56PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> >> Again I didn't follow why the second condition couldn't

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi Josef, On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 03:41:56PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> >> Again I didn't follow why the second condition couldn't just be: >> waker->nr_wakee_switch >

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 03:42:25PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 12:21 +, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > I've been working in this area recently because of a cpu imbalance problem. > > Wake_wide() definitely makes it so we're waking affine way too often, but I > > think

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 03:42:25PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 12:21 +, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > I've been working in this area recently because of a cpu imbalance problem. > > Wake_wide() definitely makes it so we're waking affine way too often, but I > > think

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 12:21 +, Josef Bacik wrote: > > I've been working in this area recently because of a cpu imbalance problem. > Wake_wide() definitely makes it so we're waking affine way too often, but I > think messing with wake_waide to solve that problem is the wrong solution. > This

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 12:21 +, Josef Bacik wrote: > > I've been working in this area recently because of a cpu imbalance problem. > Wake_wide() definitely makes it so we're waking affine way too often, but I > think messing with wake_waide to solve that problem is the wrong solution. > This

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 03:41:56PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > Again I didn't follow why the second condition couldn't just be: > waker->nr_wakee_switch > factor, or, (waker->nr_wakee_switch + >

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 03:41:56PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > Again I didn't follow why the second condition couldn't just be: > waker->nr_wakee_switch > factor, or, (waker->nr_wakee_switch + > wakee->nr_wakee_switch)

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: Again I didn't follow why the second condition couldn't just be: waker->nr_wakee_switch > factor, or, (waker->nr_wakee_switch + wakee->nr_wakee_switch) > factor, based on the above explanation from

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: Again I didn't follow why the second condition couldn't just be: waker->nr_wakee_switch > factor, or, (waker->nr_wakee_switch + wakee->nr_wakee_switch) > factor, based on the above explanation from Micheal Wang that I

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi Mike, On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > >>> To explain the second condition above, Michael Wang said the following in >>> [1] >>> >>> "Furthermore, if waker also has a high 'nr_wakee_switch', imply that >>> multiple >>> tasks rely on it, then

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi Mike, On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > >>> To explain the second condition above, Michael Wang said the following in >>> [1] >>> >>> "Furthermore, if waker also has a high 'nr_wakee_switch', imply that >>> multiple >>> tasks rely on it, then waker's higher latency

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi Mike, On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 01:01 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> Hi Mike, >> >> I have take spent some time understanding the email thread and >> previous discussions. Unfortunately the second condition we are

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi Mike, On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 01:01 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> Hi Mike, >> >> I have take spent some time understanding the email thread and >> previous discussions. Unfortunately the second condition we are >> checking for in the

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 01:01 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I have take spent some time understanding the email thread and > previous discussions. Unfortunately the second condition we are > checking for in the wake_wide still didn't make sense to me (mentioned > below) :-( > > On

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 01:01 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I have take spent some time understanding the email thread and > previous discussions. Unfortunately the second condition we are > checking for in the wake_wide still didn't make sense to me (mentioned > below) :-( > > On

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

+Michael Wang on his current email address (old one bounced). (my reply was to Mike Galbraith but I also meant to CC Michael Wang for the discussion). Thanks On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I have take spent some time understanding the

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

+Michael Wang on his current email address (old one bounced). (my reply was to Mike Galbraith but I also meant to CC Michael Wang for the discussion). Thanks On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I have take spent some time understanding the email thread and >

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi Mike, I have take spent some time understanding the email thread and previous discussions. Unfortunately the second condition we are checking for in the wake_wide still didn't make sense to me (mentioned below) :-( On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Mike Galbraith

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi Mike, I have take spent some time understanding the email thread and previous discussions. Unfortunately the second condition we are checking for in the wake_wide still didn't make sense to me (mentioned below) :-( On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2017-06-30

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 10:28 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:04:59PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > That makes sense that we multiply slave's flips by a factor because > > > its low, but I still

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:02:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 10:28 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:04:59PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > That makes sense that we multiply slave's flips by a factor because > > > its low, but I still

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 10:28 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:04:59PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > That makes sense that we multiply slave's flips by a factor because > > its low, but I still didn't get why the factor is chosen to be > > llc_size instead of something

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 10:28 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:04:59PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > That makes sense that we multiply slave's flips by a factor because > > its low, but I still didn't get why the factor is chosen to be > > llc_size instead of something

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:04:59PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Josef, > > Thanks a lot for your reply, :-) > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > Because we are trying to detect the case that the master is waking many > > different processes, and

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:04:59PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Josef, > > Thanks a lot for your reply, :-) > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > Because we are trying to detect the case that the master is waking many > > different processes, and the 'slave' processes

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Thu, 29 Jun, at 08:49:13PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > It may be worth to try with schedbench and trace it to see how this turns out > in > practice, as that's the workload that generated all this discussion before. I > imagine generally speaking this works out properly. The small regression I

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Thu, 29 Jun, at 08:49:13PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > It may be worth to try with schedbench and trace it to see how this turns out > in > practice, as that's the workload that generated all this discussion before. I > imagine generally speaking this works out properly. The small regression I

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 20:49 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:19:14PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > Why are wanting the master's flip frequency to be higher than the > > slaves by the factor? > > (Responding from my personal email as my work email is outlook shit and >

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 20:49 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:19:14PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > Why are wanting the master's flip frequency to be higher than the > > slaves by the factor? > > (Responding from my personal email as my work email is outlook shit and >

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi Josef, Thanks a lot for your reply, :-) On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > Because we are trying to detect the case that the master is waking many > different processes, and the 'slave' processes are only waking up the > master/some other specific

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

Hi Josef, Thanks a lot for your reply, :-) On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > Because we are trying to detect the case that the master is waking many > different processes, and the 'slave' processes are only waking up the > master/some other specific processes to determine if

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:19:14PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Dear Mike, > > I wanted your kind help to understand your patch "sched: beef up > wake_wide()"[1] which is a modification to the original patch from > Michael Wang [2]. > > In particular, I didn't following the following comment:

Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:19:14PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Dear Mike, > > I wanted your kind help to understand your patch "sched: beef up > wake_wide()"[1] which is a modification to the original patch from > Michael Wang [2]. > > In particular, I didn't following the following comment: