Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:18:30AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > If SLR was increased as peterz asked > about Right, so I was under the impression that you (Google) run with it increased and in mainline its currently dead code. So if its valuable to you guys we should fix in mainline. -- To

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:18:30AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > If SLR was increased as peterz asked > about Right, so I was under the impression that you (Google) run with it increased and in mainline its currently dead code. So if its valuable to you guys we should fix in mainline. -- To

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 09:54:08AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > > This second thought made a mistake (what was wrong with me). load_avg is > > for sure > > no greater than load with or without blocked load. > > > > With that said, it really does not matter what the following numbers are, >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 09:54:08AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > > This second thought made a mistake (what was wrong with me). load_avg is > > for sure > > no greater than load with or without blocked load. > > > > With that said, it really does not matter what the following numbers are, >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Yuyang Du writes: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:18:30AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> Yuyang Du writes: >> >> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:30:04AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> >> > But first, I think as load_sum and load_avg can afford NICE_0_LOAD with >> >> > either high >> >> >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:18:30AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > Yuyang Du writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:30:04AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > >> > But first, I think as load_sum and load_avg can afford NICE_0_LOAD with > >> > either high > >> > or low resolution. So we

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Yuyang Du writes: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:18:30AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> Yuyang Du writes: >> >> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:30:04AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> >> > But first, I think as load_sum and load_avg can afford

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:18:30AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > Yuyang Du writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:30:04AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > >> > But first, I think as load_sum and load_avg can afford NICE_0_LOAD with > >> > either high > >> > or low

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Yuyang Du writes: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:30:04AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> > But first, I think as load_sum and load_avg can afford NICE_0_LOAD with >> > either high >> > or low resolution. So we have no reason to have low resolution (10bits) >> > load_avg >> > when NICE_0_LOAD

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:30:04AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > > But first, I think as load_sum and load_avg can afford NICE_0_LOAD with > > either high > > or low resolution. So we have no reason to have low resolution (10bits) > > load_avg > > when NICE_0_LOAD has high resolution

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Yuyang Du writes: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:30:04AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> > But first, I think as load_sum and load_avg can afford NICE_0_LOAD with >> > either high >> > or low resolution. So we have no reason to have low resolution (10bits) >> > load_avg

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:30:04AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > > But first, I think as load_sum and load_avg can afford NICE_0_LOAD with > > either high > > or low resolution. So we have no reason to have low resolution (10bits) > > load_avg > > when NICE_0_LOAD has high resolution

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Yuyang Du writes: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:38:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >> >> > While at it, should I include Yuyang's patch redefining the SCALE/SHIFT >> > mess? >> >> I suspect his patch will fail to compile on

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:38:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > While at it, should I include Yuyang's patch redefining the SCALE/SHIFT > > mess? > > I suspect his patch will fail to compile on ARM which uses >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Yuyang Du writes: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:38:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >> >> > While at it, should I include Yuyang's patch redefining the SCALE/SHIFT >> > mess? >> >> I suspect his patch

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:38:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > While at it, should I include Yuyang's patch redefining the SCALE/SHIFT > > mess? > > I suspect his patch will fail to compile on ARM which uses >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > While at it, should I include Yuyang's patch redefining the SCALE/SHIFT > mess? I suspect his patch will fail to compile on ARM which uses SCHED_CAPACITY_* outside of kernel/sched/*. But if you all (Ben, Yuyang, you) can agree

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:06:24AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > > The point really is, metrics (if not many ) need resolution, not just > > NICE_0_LOAD does. > > You can choose to either hardcode a number, like SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT now, > > or you can use SCHED_RESOLUTION_SHIFT, which is

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > I have done some runs with the proposed fixes added: > > 1. PeterZ's util_sum shift fix (change util_sum). > 2. Morten's scaling of weight instead of time (reduce bit loss). > 3. PeterZ's unconditional calls to arch*() functions

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > I have done some runs with the proposed fixes added: > > 1. PeterZ's util_sum shift fix (change util_sum). > 2. Morten's scaling of weight instead of time (reduce bit loss). > 3. PeterZ's unconditional calls to arch*() functions

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:06:24AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > > The point really is, metrics (if not many ) need resolution, not just > > NICE_0_LOAD does. > > You can choose to either hardcode a number, like SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT now, > > or you can use SCHED_RESOLUTION_SHIFT, which is

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > While at it, should I include Yuyang's patch redefining the SCALE/SHIFT > mess? I suspect his patch will fail to compile on ARM which uses SCHED_CAPACITY_* outside of kernel/sched/*. But if you all (Ben, Yuyang, you) can agree

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Yuyang Du writes: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:11:41AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> > >> > I guess you are saying we are conflating NICE_0 with NICE_0_LOAD. But to >> > me, >> > they are just integer metrics, needing a resolution respectively. That is >> > it. >> >> Yes this would

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:34:00AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > It has never been clear to me what > SCHED_LOAD_SCALE/SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT were for as opposed to NICE_0_LOAD, SCHED_LOAD_SCALE/SHIFT are the fixed point mult/shift, and NICE_0_LOAD is the load of a nice-0 task. They happen to be

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:34:00AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > It has never been clear to me what > SCHED_LOAD_SCALE/SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT were for as opposed to NICE_0_LOAD, SCHED_LOAD_SCALE/SHIFT are the fixed point mult/shift, and NICE_0_LOAD is the load of a nice-0 task. They happen to be

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Yuyang Du writes: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:11:41AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> > >> > I guess you are saying we are conflating NICE_0 with NICE_0_LOAD. But to >> > me, >> > they are just integer metrics, needing a resolution respectively. That is >> > it. >>

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:11:41AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > > > > I guess you are saying we are conflating NICE_0 with NICE_0_LOAD. But to me, > > they are just integer metrics, needing a resolution respectively. That is > > it. > > Yes this would change nothing at the moment

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Yuyang Du writes: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:34:00AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> >> SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION and the non-SLR part of SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT are not >> >> required to be the same value and should not be conflated. >> >> >> >> In particular, since cgroups are on the same timeline

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:34:00AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > Morten Rasmussen writes: > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:05:53AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > >> Morten Rasmussen writes: > >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:28:25AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > >> >> diff --git

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:34:00AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > >> SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION and the non-SLR part of SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT are not > >> required to be the same value and should not be conflated. > >> > >> In particular, since cgroups are on the same timeline as tasks and their > >>

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:11:41AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > > > > I guess you are saying we are conflating NICE_0 with NICE_0_LOAD. But to me, > > they are just integer metrics, needing a resolution respectively. That is > > it. > > Yes this would change nothing at the moment

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:34:00AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > >> SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION and the non-SLR part of SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT are not > >> required to be the same value and should not be conflated. > >> > >> In particular, since cgroups are on the same timeline as tasks and their > >>

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:34:00AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > Morten Rasmussen writes: > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:05:53AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > >> Morten Rasmussen writes: > >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Yuyang Du writes: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:34:00AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> >> SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION and the non-SLR part of SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT are not >> >> required to be the same value and should not be conflated. >> >> >> >> In particular, since cgroups are

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Yuyang Du writes: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:05:53AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> >> SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION and the non-SLR part of SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT are not >> required to be the same value and should not be conflated. > >> In particular, since cgroups are on the same timeline as

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Morten Rasmussen writes: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:05:53AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> Morten Rasmussen writes: >> >> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:28:25AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h >> >> index 119823d..55a7b93 100644 >>

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:05:53AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > Morten Rasmussen writes: > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:28:25AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > >> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h > >> index 119823d..55a7b93 100644 > >> --- a/include/linux/sched.h > >>

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:05:53AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > Morten Rasmussen writes: > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:28:25AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > >> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h > >> index 119823d..55a7b93 100644 > >> ---

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Morten Rasmussen writes: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:05:53AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> Morten Rasmussen writes: >> >> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:28:25AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Yuyang Du writes: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:05:53AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> >> SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION and the non-SLR part of SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT are not >> required to be the same value and should not be conflated. > >> In particular, since cgroups are on the

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:05:53AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > > SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION and the non-SLR part of SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT are not > required to be the same value and should not be conflated. > In particular, since cgroups are on the same timeline as tasks and their > shares are not

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:13:10PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Sadly that makes the code worse; I get 14 mul instructions where > > previously I had 11. > > > > What happens is that GCC gets confused and cannot constant

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Morten Rasmussen writes: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:28:25AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:07:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > > > Still don't understand why it's a unit problem. IMHO LOAD/UTIL and >> > > > CAPACITY have no unit. >> > > >> > > To be more accurate,

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:02:33AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:46:51PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote: > > Hi Morten, > > > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:53:31PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > > On

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:28:25AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:07:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Still don't understand why it's a unit problem. IMHO LOAD/UTIL and > > > > CAPACITY have no unit. > > > > > > To be more accurate, probably, LOAD can be thought of

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:46:51PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote: > Hi Morten, > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:53:31PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 01:10:19PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > so it appear to be intended to be using low resolution like load_avg > > > (weight is scaled down before it is passed into __update_load_avg()), > > > but util_avg is shifted up to high resolution. It should be: > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:07:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Still don't understand why it's a unit problem. IMHO LOAD/UTIL and > > > CAPACITY have no unit. > > > > To be more accurate, probably, LOAD can be thought of as having unit, > > but UTIL has no unit. > > But I'm thinking that

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Hi Morten, On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:53:31PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > Something like teh below.. > > > > > > Another thing to ponder; the

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Morten Rasmussen writes: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:28:25AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:07:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > > > Still don't understand why it's a unit problem. IMHO LOAD/UTIL and >> > > > CAPACITY have no unit. >> > >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:13:10PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Sadly that makes the code worse; I get 14 mul instructions where > > previously I had 11. > > > > What happens is that GCC gets confused and cannot constant

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:07:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Still don't understand why it's a unit problem. IMHO LOAD/UTIL and > > > CAPACITY have no unit. > > > > To be more accurate, probably, LOAD can be thought of as having unit, > > but UTIL has no unit. > > But I'm thinking that

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 01:10:19PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > so it appear to be intended to be using low resolution like load_avg > > > (weight is scaled down before it is passed into __update_load_avg()), > > > but util_avg is shifted up to high resolution. It should be: > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:46:51PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote: > Hi Morten, > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:53:31PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Hi Morten, On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:53:31PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > Something like teh below.. > > > > > > Another thing to ponder; the

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:28:25AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:07:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Still don't understand why it's a unit problem. IMHO LOAD/UTIL and > > > > CAPACITY have no unit. > > > > > > To be more accurate, probably, LOAD can be thought of

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:02:33AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:46:51PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote: > > Hi Morten, > > > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:53:31PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > > On

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:05:53AM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > > SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION and the non-SLR part of SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT are not > required to be the same value and should not be conflated. > In particular, since cgroups are on the same timeline as tasks and their > shares are not

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Morten Rasmussen writes: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:23:43PM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra writes: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >> > > Tricky that,

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 01:11:01PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 10 September 2015 at 13:06, Morten Rasmussen > wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:23:43PM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > >> Peter Zijlstra writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On 10 September 2015 at 13:06, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:23:43PM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra writes: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:23:43PM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > Peter Zijlstra writes: > > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> > > Tricky that, LOAD_AVG_MAX very much relies on the

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 04:15:20AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 01:50:38PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > > > It's both a unit and a SCALE/SHIFT problem, SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT and > > > SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT are defined separately so we must be sure to > > > scale the value in the

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:07:48AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > +#if (SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT - SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION) != 10 || > > SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT != 10 > > +#error "load tracking assumes 2^10 as unit" > > +#endif > > + > >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 04:15:20AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 01:50:38PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > > > It's both a unit and a SCALE/SHIFT problem, SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT and > > > SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT are defined separately so we must be sure to > > > scale the value in the

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:07:48AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > +#if (SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT - SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION) != 10 || > > SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT != 10 > > +#error "load tracking assumes 2^10 as unit" > > +#endif > > + > >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 01:11:01PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 10 September 2015 at 13:06, Morten Rasmussen > wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:23:43PM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > >> Peter Zijlstra writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, Sep

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On 10 September 2015 at 13:06, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:23:43PM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra writes: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 08,

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:23:43PM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: > Peter Zijlstra writes: > > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> > > Tricky that, LOAD_AVG_MAX very

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Morten Rasmussen writes: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:23:43PM -0700, bseg...@google.com wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra writes: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200,

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 01:50:38PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > > It's both a unit and a SCALE/SHIFT problem, SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT and > > SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT are defined separately so we must be sure to > > scale the value in the right range. In the case of cpu_usage which > > returns

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > +#if (SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT - SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION) != 10 || SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT > != 10 > +#error "load tracking assumes 2^10 as unit" > +#endif > + Sorry for late response. I might already missed somthing. But I got a bit lost

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Peter Zijlstra writes: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > > Tricky that, LOAD_AVG_MAX very much relies on the unit being 1<<10. >> >> I don't get why LOAD_AVG_MAX relies on the util_avg

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:53:31PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > But if we apply

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Sadly that makes the code worse; I get 14 mul instructions where > previously I had 11. FWIW I count like: objdump -d defconfig-build/kernel/sched/fair.o | awk '/<[^>]*>:/ { p=0 } /:/ { p=1 } { if (p) print $0 }' |

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:53:31PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > But if we apply the scaling to the weight instead of time, we would only > > have to apply

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Sadly that makes the code worse; I get 14 mul instructions where > previously I had 11. FWIW I count like: objdump -d defconfig-build/kernel/sched/fair.o | awk '/<[^>]*>:/ { p=0 } /:/ { p=1 } { if (p) print $0 }' |

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:53:31PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > But if we apply

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:53:31PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > But if we apply the scaling to the weight instead of time, we would only > > have to apply

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

Peter Zijlstra writes: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > > Tricky that, LOAD_AVG_MAX very much relies on the unit being 1<<10. >> >> I don't get why LOAD_AVG_MAX

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > +#if (SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT - SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION) != 10 || SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT > != 10 > +#error "load tracking assumes 2^10 as unit" > +#endif > + Sorry for late response. I might already missed somthing. But I got a bit lost

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 01:50:38PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > > It's both a unit and a SCALE/SHIFT problem, SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT and > > SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT are defined separately so we must be sure to > > scale the value in the right range. In the case of cpu_usage which > > returns

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Something like teh below.. > > > > Another thing to ponder; the downside of scaled_delta_w is that its > > fairly likely delta is small and you loose all

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Tricky that, LOAD_AVG_MAX very much relies on the unit being 1<<10. > > I don't get why LOAD_AVG_MAX relies on the util_avg shifting being > 1<<10, it is just

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On 8 September 2015 at 16:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:39:37PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > Now, given all that, units are a complete mess here, and I'd not mind >> > something like: >> > >> > #if (SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT - SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION) != SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On 8 September 2015 at 16:35, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 04:06:36PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 8 September 2015 at 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:26:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:22:05AM +0200,

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 04:06:36PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 8 September 2015 at 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:26:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:22:05AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >> > No, but > >> > sa->util_avg =

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:26:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:22:05AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > No, but > > > sa->util_avg = (sa->util_sum << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT) / LOAD_AVG_MAX; > > >

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On 08/09/15 15:01, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 8 September 2015 at 14:50, Dietmar Eggemann > wrote: >> On 08/09/15 08:22, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>> On 7 September 2015 at 20:54, Dietmar Eggemann >>> wrote: On 07/09/15 17:21, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 7 September 2015 at 17:37,

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:39:37PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > Now, given all that, units are a complete mess here, and I'd not mind > > something like: > > > > #if (SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT - SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION) != SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT > > #error "something usefull" > > #endif > > In this case

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On 8 September 2015 at 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:26:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:22:05AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > No, but >> > sa->util_avg = (sa->util_sum << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT) / LOAD_AVG_MAX; >> > will fix the unit

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On 8 September 2015 at 14:50, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 08/09/15 08:22, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 7 September 2015 at 20:54, Dietmar Eggemann >> wrote: >>> On 07/09/15 17:21, Vincent Guittot wrote: On 7 September 2015 at 17:37, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 04/09/15 00:51,

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On 8 September 2015 at 14:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:22:05AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> No, but >> sa->util_avg = (sa->util_sum << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT) / LOAD_AVG_MAX; >> will fix the unit issue. > > Tricky that, LOAD_AVG_MAX very much relies on the unit being

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:26:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:22:05AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > No, but > > sa->util_avg = (sa->util_sum << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT) / LOAD_AVG_MAX; > > will fix the unit issue. > > Tricky that, LOAD_AVG_MAX very much relies on

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On 08/09/15 08:22, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 7 September 2015 at 20:54, Dietmar Eggemann > wrote: >> On 07/09/15 17:21, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>> On 7 September 2015 at 17:37, Dietmar Eggemann >>> wrote: On 04/09/15 00:51, Steve Muckle wrote: > Hi Morten, Dietmar, > > On

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On 07/09/15 20:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 07:54:18PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: >> I would vote for removing this SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION thing completely so >> that we can >> assume that load/util and capacity are always using 1024/10. > > Ha!, I just requested Google

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:22:05AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > No, but > sa->util_avg = (sa->util_sum << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT) / LOAD_AVG_MAX; > will fix the unit issue. Tricky that, LOAD_AVG_MAX very much relies on the unit being 1<<10. And where load_sum already gets a factor 1024 from the

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 07:54:18PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > I see the point but IMHO this will only be necessary if the > SCHED_LOAD_RESOLUTION > stuff gets re-enabled again. Paul, Ben, gentle reminder to look at re-enabling this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On 7 September 2015 at 20:54, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 07/09/15 17:21, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 7 September 2015 at 17:37, Dietmar Eggemann >> wrote: >>> On 04/09/15 00:51, Steve Muckle wrote: Hi Morten, Dietmar, On 08/14/2015 09:23 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote: ...

Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by capacity_orig

On 7 September 2015 at 20:54, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 07/09/15 17:21, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 7 September 2015 at 17:37, Dietmar Eggemann >> wrote: >>> On 04/09/15 00:51, Steve Muckle wrote: Hi Morten, Dietmar, On

  1   2   >