+48
−14
Loading
sched/fair: Fix cpu_util_wake() for 'execl' type workloads
A ~10% regression has been reported for UnixBench's execl throughput test by Aaron Lu and Ye Xiaolong: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/30/765 That test is pretty simple, it does a "recursive" execve() syscall on the same binary. Starting from the syscall, this sequence is possible: do_execve() do_execveat_common() __do_execve_file() sched_exec() select_task_rq_fair() <==| Task already enqueued find_idlest_cpu() find_idlest_group() capacity_spare_wake() <==| Functions not called from cpu_util_wake() | the wakeup path which means we can end up calling cpu_util_wake() not only from the "wakeup path", as its name would suggest. Indeed, the task doing an execve() syscall is already enqueued on the CPU we want to get the cpu_util_wake() for. The estimated utilization for a CPU computed in cpu_util_wake() was written under the assumption that function can be called only from the wakeup path. If instead the task is already enqueued, we end up with a utilization which does not remove the current task's contribution from the estimated utilization of the CPU. This will wrongly assume a reduced spare capacity on the current CPU and increase the chances to migrate the task on execve. The regression is tracked down to: commit d519329f ("sched/fair: Update util_est only on util_avg updates") because in that patch we turn on by default the UTIL_EST sched feature. However, the real issue is introduced by: commit f9be3e59 ("sched/fair: Use util_est in LB and WU paths") Let's fix this by ensuring to always discount the task estimated utilization from the CPU's estimated utilization when the task is also the current one. The same benchmark of the bug report, executed on a dual socket 40 CPUs Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz machine, reports these "Execl Throughput" figures (higher the better): mainline : 48136.5 lps mainline+fix : 55376.5 lps which correspond to a 15% speedup. Moreover, since {cpu_util,capacity_spare}_wake() are not really only used from the wakeup path, let's remove this ambiguity by using a better matching name: {cpu_util,capacity_spare}_without(). Since we are at that, let's also improve the existing documentation. Reported-by:Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> Reported-by: