Thread (50 messages) 50 messages, 10 authors, 2020-06-24

Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default boost value

From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date: 2020-06-04 12:14:55
Also in: linux-fsdevel, lkml

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 18:52, Qais Yousef [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On 06/03/20 16:59, Vincent Guittot wrote:
quoted
When I want to stress the fast path i usually use "perf bench sched pipe -T "
The tip/sched/core on my arm octo core gives the following results for
20 iterations of perf bench sched pipe -T -l 50000

all uclamp config disabled  50035.4(+/- 0.334%)
all uclamp config enabled  48749.8(+/- 0.339%)   -2.64%

It's quite easy to reproduce and probably easier to study the impact
Thanks Vincent. This is very useful!

I could reproduce that on my Juno.

One of the codepath I was suspecting seems to affect it.


diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 0464569f26a7..9f48090eb926 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -1063,10 +1063,12 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_dec_id(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
         * e.g. due to future modification, warn and fixup the expected value.
         */
        SCHED_WARN_ON(bucket->value > rq_clamp);
+#if 0
        if (bucket->value >= rq_clamp) {
                bkt_clamp = uclamp_rq_max_value(rq, clamp_id, uc_se->value);
                WRITE_ONCE(uc_rq->value, bkt_clamp);
        }
+#endif
 }

 static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)


uclamp_rq_max_value() could be expensive as it loops over all buckets.
Commenting this whole path out strangely doesn't just 'fix' it, but produces
better results to no-uclamp kernel :-/



# ./perf bench -r 20 sched pipe -T -l 50000
Without uclamp:         5039
With uclamp:            4832
With uclamp+patch:      5729



It might be because schedutil gets biased differently by uclamp..? If I move to
performance governor these numbers almost double.

I don't know. But this promoted me to look closer and I think I spotted a bug
where in the if condition we check for '>=' instead of '>', causing us to take
the supposedly impossible fail safe path.

Mind trying with the below patch please?
I have tried your patch and I don't see any difference compared to
previous tests. Let me give you more details of my setup:
I create 3 levels of cgroups and usually run the tests in the 4 levels
(which includes root). The result above are for the root level

But I see a difference at other levels:

                           root           level 1       level 2       level 3

/w patch uclamp disable     50097         46615         43806         41078
tip uclamp enable           48706(-2.78%) 45583(-2.21%) 42851(-2.18%)
40313(-1.86%)
/w patch uclamp enable      48882(-2.43%) 45774(-1.80%) 43108(-1.59%)
40667(-1.00%)

Whereas tip with uclamp stays around 2% behind tip without uclamp, the
diff of uclamp with your patch tends to decrease when we increase the
number of level

Beside this, that's also interesting to notice the ~6% of perf impact
between each level for the same image
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 0464569f26a7..50d66d4016ff 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -1063,7 +1063,7 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_dec_id(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
         * e.g. due to future modification, warn and fixup the expected value.
         */
        SCHED_WARN_ON(bucket->value > rq_clamp);
-       if (bucket->value >= rq_clamp) {
+       if (bucket->value > rq_clamp) {
                bkt_clamp = uclamp_rq_max_value(rq, clamp_id, uc_se->value);
                WRITE_ONCE(uc_rq->value, bkt_clamp);
        }


Thanks

--
Qais Yousef
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help