On 24-Oct 14:41, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 11:20:00AM +0800, Ye, Xiaolong wrote:
> >
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -9.9% regression of unixbench.score due to commit:
> >
> >
> > commit: d519329f72a6f36bc4f2b85452640cfe583b4f81 ("sched/fair: Update
> > util_est only on util_avg updates")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> >
> > in testcase: unixbench
> > on test machine: 8 threads Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 870 @ 2.93GHz with 6G
> > memory
> > with following parameters:
> >
> > runtime: 300s
> > nr_task: 100%
> > test: execl
> >
> > test-description: UnixBench is the original BYTE UNIX benchmark suite aims
> > to test performance of Unix-like system.
> > test-url: https://github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench
Hi Aaron,
> I tested this workload on different machines with this commit
> d519329f72a6f36bc4f2b85452 and its parent a07630b8b2c16f82, I also
> tested with v4.19-rc8 to see if the regression is gone -
> the performance drop is there with v4.19-rc8 and with different
> machines so I assume this regression is not solved yet.
>
> Here are detailed data:
>
> cmdline used to run this workload:
> ./Run execl -c $nr_cpu -i 30
I had a better look into this issue and found that something like this
could be the cure for the execl throughput regression:
---8<---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 908c9cdae2f0..c34d41b542fc 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6258,8 +6258,17 @@ static unsigned long cpu_util_wake(int cpu, struct
task_struct *p)
* covered by the following code when estimated utilization is
* enabled.
*/
- if (sched_feat(UTIL_EST))
- util = max(util, READ_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued));
+ if (sched_feat(UTIL_EST)) {
+ unsigned int estimated =
+ READ_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued);
+
+ if (unlikely(current == p)) {
+ estimated -= min_t(unsigned int, estimated,
+ (_task_util_est(p) | UTIL_AVG_UNCHANGED));
+ }
+
+ util = max(util, estimated);
+ }
/*
* Utilization (estimated) can exceed the CPU capacity, thus let's
---8<---
I'll test this better on a machine on my side and send out a proper
patch by tomorrow.
> Please let me know if you need other information, thanks.
Would be nice if you can test the above on your side too.
Cheers Patrick
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
