Re: [PATCH v4] sched/topology: change behaviour of sysctl sched_energy_aware based on the platform

[Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 9/28/23 3:24 PM, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/28/23 11:25, Pierre Gondois wrote:
>> Hello Shrikanth, Dietmar,
>>
>> On 9/27/23 19:08, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/27/23 6:44 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>>> Ah, BTW s/quentin.perret@arm.com/qperret@google.com
>>>>
>>>> On 27/09/2023 10:14, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/27/23 2:59 AM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/09/2023 12:00, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> At present, though platform doesn't support EAS, this sysctl
>>>>>>> returns 1
>>>>>>> and it ends up calling rebuild of sched domain on write to 1 and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sched domains are not rebuild in this case, i.e.
>>>>>> partition_sched_domains_locked() does not call
>>>>>> detach_destroy_domains()
>>>>>> or build_sched_domains(). Only build_perf_domains() is called which
>>>>>> bails out if !sysctl_sched_energy_aware or one of the EAS
>>>>>> conditions is
>>>>>> not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ok. that's because it goes to match1 and match2 right?
>>>>
>>>> yes.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -231,6 +289,14 @@ static int sched_energy_aware_handler(struct
>>>>>>> ctl_table *table, int write,
>>>>>>>            return -EPERM;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        ret = proc_dointvec_minmax(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
>>>>>>> +    if (!sched_is_eas_possible(cpu_active_mask)) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is using `cpu_active_mask` so EAS can only be disabled
>>>>>> system-wide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I experimented with an exclusive cpuset setup creating a symmetric
>>>>>> (cs1) and an asymmetric (cs2) island on my Juno with its cpumask =
>>>>>> [l B
>>>>>> B l l l] (l - little CPU, B - Big CPU).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> root@juno:~# cd /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset
>>>>>> root@juno:/sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset# mkdir cs1
>>>>>> root@juno:/sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset# echo 1 > cs1/cpuset.cpu_exclusive
>>>>>> root@juno:/sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset# echo 0 > cs1/cpuset.mems
>>>>>> root@juno:/sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset# echo 4,5 > cs1/cpuset.cpus
>>>>>> root@juno:/sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset# mkdir cs2
>>>>>> root@juno:/sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset# echo 1 > cs2/cpuset.cpu_exclusive
>>>>>> root@juno:/sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset# echo 0 > cs2/cpuset.mems
>>>>>> root@juno:/sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset# echo 0-3 > cs2/cpuset.cpus
>>>>>> root@juno:/sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset# echo 0 > cpuset.sched_load_balance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ 3021.761278] root_domain 0-3: pd1:{ cpus=1-2 nr_pstate=5 } pd0:{
>>>>>> cpus=0,3-5 nr_pstate=5 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> root@juno:~# echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_energy_aware
>>>>>>
>>>>>> log messages:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> [ 3143.538583] rd 4-5: Disabling EAS
>>>>>> [ 3143.549569] rd 0-3: Disabling EAS
>>>>>> [ 3143.560681] sched_energy_set: stopping EAS
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> root@juno:~# echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_energy_aware
>>>>>>
>>>>>> log messages:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> [ 3223.277521] root_domain 0-3: pd1:{ cpus=1-2 nr_pstate=5 } pd0:{
>>>>>> cpus=0,3-5 nr_pstate=5 }
>>>>>> [ 3223.293409] sched_energy_set: starting EAS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems still to work correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that can be a issue. using first cpu here check to asymmetric
>>>>> cpu capacity.
>>>>> It would have worked here, since the first group had asymmetry. ( l
>>>>> B B l ).
>>>>> It wouldn't have worked if the first group had like ( l l ) and
>>>>> second group has ( l B B l )
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's true.
>>>>
>>>>     sched_is_eas_possible(const struct cpumask *cpu_mask)
>>>>
>>>>       !per_cpu(sd_asym_cpucapacity, cpumask_first(cpu_mask));
>>>>
>>>> cpusets cs1=[0,5] and cs2=[1-4] as such an example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> right.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Instead of cpu_active_mask, I can make use of ndoms_cur and
>>>>> doms_cur[i] logic to
>>>>> traverse through possible doms, and if none of the domains have
>>>>> asymmetric cpu capacity
>>>>> return false.  Does that look right?
>>>>
>>>>     rebuild_sched_domains()
>>>>
>>>>       rebuild_sched_domains_locked()
>>>>
>>>>         ndoms = generate_sched_domains(&doms, &attr)
>>>>
>>>> You would need generate_sched_domains() in
>>>> sched_energy_aware_handler()?
>>>>
>>>
>>> clearly I didnt think through this. ndoms_cur and doms_cur are
>>> updated at the end.
>>> So If EAS is possible at boot, this would fail.
>>>
>>>
>>> What  sched_is_eas_possible needs is if there is asymmetric cpu
>>> topology.
>>> Simpler loop of all CPU's and checking if there any of them have
>>> sd_asym_cpucapacity might do,
>>> though it goes through all CPU's, Since these functions are not in
>>> hot path
>>> So it should not affect any performance. Something like below would
>>> work?
>>>
>>>     bool any_asym_capacity = false;
>>>
>>>           /* EAS is enabled for asymmetric CPU capacity topologies. */
>>>           for_each_cpu(i, cpu_mask) {
>>>                   if (per_cpu(sd_asym_cpucapacity, i)) {
>>>                           any_asym_capacity = true;
>>>                           break;
>>>                   }
>>>           }
>>>           if (!any_asym_capacity) {
>>>                   if (sched_debug()) {
>>>                           pr_info("rd %*pbl: Checking EAS, CPUs do
>>> not have asymmetric capacities\n",
>>>                                   cpumask_pr_args(cpu_mask));
>>>                   }
>>>                   return false;
>>>           }
>>>
>>
>> FYIW I could reproduce the issue mentioned above, and the suggested bit
>> seems to solve it.
>>

Thanks for trying this out. 

>>>
>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -458,6 +487,8 @@ static bool build_perf_domains(const struct
>>>>>>> cpumask *cpu_map)
>>>>>>>        return !!pd;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    free:
>>>>>>> +    if (sched_debug())
>>>>>>> +        pr_warn("rd %*pbl: Disabling EAS",
>>>>>>> cpumask_pr_args(cpu_map));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't this be used in condition `if
>>>>>> (!sysctl_sched_energy_aware)`?
>>>>>> Otherwise we have 2 warnings when the other conditions which leads to
>>>>>> `goto free` aren't met.
>>>>> Since sched_energy_set has the info messages about start and stop
>>>>> of EAS, maybe
>>>>> this debug is not needed. Will remove it. Doing it only `if
>>>>> (!sysctl_sched_energy_aware)`
>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>>> also doesn't seem correct, as calling free in this function would
>>>>> free the perf_domains.
>>>>
>>>> But !sched_is_eas_possible() also does `goto free` and in there we we
>>>> emit pr_info's indicating why EAS isn't possible right now.
>>>>
>>>> When issuing a:
>>>>
>>>> # echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_energy_aware
>>>>
>>>> we would see in the logs:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> [  416.325324] rd 0-5: sysctl_sched_energy_aware is N   <-- (*)
>>>> [  416.337844] sched_energy_set: stopping EAS
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> but maybe (*) is not necessary ...
>>
>> I m not sure I understand 100% the point, but it seems to me that when
>> changing sysctl_sched_energy_aware's value, either:
>> - EAS is not possible, and sched_is_eas_possible() will output the
>> reason why
>>     (i.e. "Checking EAS, [...]")
>> - EAS was deactivated by the user, and it is possible to check the
>> value of
>>     sysctl_sched_energy_aware. So there would be no need to have an
>> additional
>>     message "Checking EAS, sysclt sched_energy_aware set to N"
>>
>> When build_perf_domains() is called while rebuilding the sched
>> domains, it is also
>> possible to check sched_energy_aware's value and understand why EAS is
>> not enabled.
>>
>>>
>>> ok. I think we can add similar info message in
>>> if(!sysctl_sched_energy_aware) like below?
>>> Would that be enough?
>>>
>>>           if (!sysctl_sched_energy_aware) {
>>>                   if (sched_debug()) {
>>>                           pr_info("rd %*pbl: Checking EAS, sysclt
>>> sched_energy_aware set to N\n",
>>>                                   cpumask_pr_args(cpu_map));
>>>                   }
>>
>> (No need for brackets here, just in case)
>>
>>>                   goto free;
>>>           }
>>>
>>> and remove the below one.
>>>           if (sched_debug())
>>>                   pr_warn("rd %*pbl: Disabling EAS",
>>> cpumask_pr_args(cpu_map));
>>>
>>>
>>> So there will be these "Checking EAS" and if possible, "starting EAS"
>>> or "stopping EAS" message.
>>
>>
>> I will rebase the patch removing the EM complexity and check it/resend
>> it,
>> like this the 2 patches could go together:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221121094336.3250917-1-pierre.gondois@arm.com/
> 
> The patch actually seems to apply cleanly on v6.6-rc3, and the
> complexity of
> find_energy_efficient_cpu() seems to be the same as what it was when the
> patch
> was sent, so I believe you can:
> - Rebase your patch on top of it
> - Provide a pointer to it in the changelog to mention the dependency
> - Remove this bit in the commit message of your patch:
> "It takes most of the cases into account except one where EM complexity is
> too high as the code was bit tricky to separate that."
> 
> Regards,
> Pierre

Ok. I should be able to do this and send out v5 soon.