From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, qyousef@layalina.io,
rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, vschneid@redhat.com,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
lukasz.luba@arm.com, wvw@google.com, xuewen.yan94@gmail.com,
han.lin@mediatek.com, Jonathan.JMChen@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/fair: unlink misfit task from cpu overutilized
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 17:36:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <122cb5dd-de31-2b41-1899-0dd9ec03a2c4@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDH-0FrmYfH-61c+_TSM3DPtz9na47DuLYBxkwr8MmCkQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 27/01/2023 17:20, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 12:42, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 19/01/2023 17:42, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> By taking into account uclamp_min, the 1:1 relation between task misfit
>>> and cpu overutilized is no more true as a task with a small util_avg may
>>> not fit a high capacity cpu because of uclamp_min constraint.
>>>
>>> Add a new state in util_fits_cpu() to reflect the case that task would fit
>>> a CPU except for the uclamp_min hint which is a performance requirement.
>>>
>>> Use -1 to reflect that a CPU doesn't fit only because of uclamp_min so we
>>> can use this new value to take additional action to select the best CPU
>>> that doesn't match uclamp_min hint.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Change since v3:
>>> - Keep current condition for uclamp_max_fits in util_fits_cpu()
>>> - Update some comments
>>
>> We had already this discussion whether this patch can also remove
>> Capacity Inversion (CapInv).
>>
>> After studying the code again, I'm not so sure anymore.
>>
>> This patch:
>>
>> (1) adds a dedicated return value (-1) to util_fits_cpu() when:
>>
>> `util fits 80% capacity_of() && util < uclamp_min && uclamp_min >
>> capacity_orig_thermal (region c)`
>>
>> (2) Enhancements to the CPU selection in sic() and feec() to cater for
>> this new return value.
>>
>> IMHO this doesn't make the intention of CapInv in util_fits_cpu()
>> obsolete, which is using:
>>
>> in CapInv:
>>
>> capacity_orig = capacity_orig_of() - thermal_load_avg
>> capacity_orig_thermal = capacity_orig_of() - thermal_load_avg
>>
>> not in CapInv:
>>
>> capacity_orig = capacity_orig_of()
>> capacity_orig_thermal = capacity_orig_of() - th_pressure
>>
>> Maybe I still miss a bit of the story?
>>
>> v3 hints to removing the bits in the next version:
>>
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230115001906.v7uq4ddodrbvye7d@airbuntu
>>
>>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 105 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>> 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> index d4db72f8f84e..54e14da53274 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>> @@ -4561,8 +4561,8 @@ static inline int util_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
>>> * handle the case uclamp_min > uclamp_max.
>>> */
>>> uclamp_min = min(uclamp_min, uclamp_max);
>>> - if (util < uclamp_min && capacity_orig != SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
>>> - fits = fits && (uclamp_min <= capacity_orig_thermal);
>>> + if (fits && (util < uclamp_min) && (uclamp_min > capacity_orig_thermal))
>>> + return -1;
>>
>> Or does the definition 'return -1 if util fits but uclamp doesn't' make
>> the distinction between capacity_orig and capacity_orig_thermal obsolete
>> and so CapInv?
>
> Yes, that's the key point. When it returns -1, we will continue to
> look for a possible cpu with better performance which replaces CapInv
> with capacity_orig_of() - thermal_load_avg to detect a capacity
> inversion.
I see.
Could you add this paragraph to the patch header so that we understand
this part of the intention of this change right away? I know you
mentioned this either in a conversation or in an email-thread somewhere
but I forgot about it in the meantime.
Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-31 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-19 17:42 Vincent Guittot
2023-01-23 12:10 ` Kajetan Puchalski
2023-01-25 8:26 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-01-25 1:46 ` Kajetan Puchalski
2023-01-25 8:37 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-01-25 16:09 ` Qais Yousef
2023-01-26 11:42 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-01-27 16:20 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-01-31 16:36 ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2023-01-29 16:21 ` Qais Yousef
2023-01-31 16:36 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-01-29 16:35 ` Qais Yousef
2023-01-30 14:13 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-01-30 19:30 ` Qais Yousef
2023-01-31 15:38 ` Vincent Guittot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=122cb5dd-de31-2b41-1899-0dd9ec03a2c4@arm.com \
--to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=Jonathan.JMChen@mediatek.com \
--cc=han.lin@mediatek.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukasz.luba@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wvw@google.com \
--cc=xuewen.yan94@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®