Re: [PATCH v3 10/13] sched/fair: Compute task/cpu utilization at wake-up more correctly

[Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:48:19AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2016-08-19 22:03 GMT+08:00 Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:43:00AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >> 2016-08-18 21:45 GMT+08:00 Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>:
> >> > I assume you are referring to using task_util_peak() instead of
> >> > task_util() in wake_cap()?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The peak value should never exceed the util_avg accumulated by the task
> >> > last time it ran. So any spike has to be caused by the task accumulating
> >> > more utilization last time it ran. We don't know if it a spike or a more
> >>
> >> I see.
> >>
> >> > permanent change in behaviour, so we have to guess. So a spike on an
> >> > asymmetric system could cause us to disable wake affine in some
> >> > circumstances (either prev_cpu or waker cpu has to be low compute
> >> > capacity) for the following wake-up.
> >> >
> >> > SMP should be unaffected as we should bail out on the previous
> >> > condition.
> >>
> >> Why capacity_orig instead of capacity since it is checked each time
> >> wakeup and maybe rt class/interrupt have already occupied many cpu
> >> utilization.
> >
> > We could switch to capacity for this condition if we also change the
> > spare capacity evaluation in find_idlest_group() to do the same. It
> > would open up for SMP systems to take find_idlest_group() route if the
> > SD_BALANCE_WAKE flag is set.
> >
> > The reason why I have avoided capacity and used capacity_orig instead
> > is that in previous discussions about scheduling behaviour under
> > rt/dl/irq pressure it has been clear to me whether we want to move tasks
> > away from cpus with capacity < capacity_orig or not. The choice depends
> > on the use-case.
> >
> > In some cases taking rt/dl/irq pressure into account is more complicated
> > as we don't know the capacities available in a sched_group without
> > iterating over all the cpus. However, I don't think it would complicate
> > these patches. It is more a question whether everyone are happy with
> > additional conditions in their wake-up path. I guess we could make it a
> > sched_feature if people are interested?
> >
> > In short, I used capacity_orig to play it safe ;-)
> 
> Actually you mixed capacity_orig and capacity when evaluating max spare cap.

Right, that is a mistake. Thanks for pointing that out :-)

Morten