From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: qperret@google.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Check if prev_cpu has highest spare cap in feec()
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 07:13:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42b2c57d-33d4-dc41-efc4-682aa02f9429@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220819153320.291720-2-pierre.gondois@arm.com>
On 19/08/2022 17:33, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> When evaluating the CPU candidates in the perf domain (pd) containing
> the previously used CPU (prev_cpu), find_energy_efficient_cpu()
> evaluates the energy of the pd:
> - without the task (base_energy)
> - with the task placed on prev_cpu (if the task fits)
> - with the task placed on the CPU with the highest spare capacity,
> prev_cpu being excluded from this set
>
> If prev_cpu is already the CPU with the highest spare capacity,
> max_spare_cap_cpu will be the CPU with the second highest spare
> capacity.
>
> On an Arm64 Juno-r2, with a workload of 10 tasks at a 10% duty cycle,
> when prev_cpu and max_spare_cap_cpu are both valid candidates,
> prev_spare_cap > max_spare_cap at ~82%.
> Thus the energy of the pd when placing the task on max_spare_cap_cpu
> is computed with no possible positive outcome 82% most of the time.
>
> Do not consider max_spare_cap_cpu as a valid candidate if
> prev_spare_cap > max_spare_cap.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
LGTM. When I ran the workload I see this happening in 50%-90% of the EAS
wakeups. This should prevent one needless compute_energy() call out of 7
on a typical 3-gear system like 2x2x4 in these cases.
Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-29 5:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-19 15:33 [PATCH 0/2] sched/fair: feec()/scale_rt_capacity() improvements Pierre Gondois
2022-08-19 15:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Check if prev_cpu has highest spare cap in feec() Pierre Gondois
2022-08-29 5:13 ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2022-09-26 12:13 ` Pierre Gondois
2022-08-19 15:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Use IRQ scaling for all sched classes Pierre Gondois
2022-08-23 16:26 ` Vincent Guittot
2022-08-24 15:22 ` Pierre Gondois
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=42b2c57d-33d4-dc41-efc4-682aa02f9429@arm.com \
--to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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®