From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@unisoc.com>,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
christian.loehle@arm.com, vincent.donnefort@arm.com,
ke.wang@unisoc.com, di.shen@unisoc.com, xuewen.yan94@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] sched/fair: Use actual_cpu_capacity everywhere in util_fits_cpu()
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 08:25:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <66f2ef35-cbc0-4205-96f1-c857efb6f9cd@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240704235652.n2wtpwck43umh4dq@airbuntu>
On 05/07/2024 01:56, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 07/03/24 16:54, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 at 13:54, Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/02/24 15:25, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> * Only exception is for HW or cpufreq pressure since it has a direct impact
>>>>>> * on available OPP of the system.
>>>>>> @@ -5011,7 +5011,7 @@ static inline int util_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
>>>>>> * For uclamp_max, we can tolerate a drop in performance level as the
>>>>>> * goal is to cap the task. So it's okay if it's getting less.
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> - capacity_orig = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu);
>>>>>> + capacity_actual = get_actual_cpu_capacity(cpu);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> * We want to force a task to fit a cpu as implied by uclamp_max.
>>>>>> @@ -5039,7 +5039,7 @@ static inline int util_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
>>>>>> * uclamp_max request.
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> * which is what we're enforcing here. A task always fits if
>>>>>> - * uclamp_max <= capacity_orig. But when uclamp_max > capacity_orig,
>>>>>> + * uclamp_max <= capacity_actual. But when uclamp_max > capacity_actual,
>>>>>> * the normal upmigration rules should withhold still.
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> * Only exception is when we are on max capacity, then we need to be
>>>>>> @@ -5050,8 +5050,8 @@ static inline int util_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
>>>>>> * 2. The system is being saturated when we're operating near
>>>>>> * max capacity, it doesn't make sense to block overutilized.
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> - uclamp_max_fits = (capacity_orig == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) && (uclamp_max == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
>>>>>> - uclamp_max_fits = !uclamp_max_fits && (uclamp_max <= capacity_orig);
>>>>>> + uclamp_max_fits = (capacity_actual == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) && (uclamp_max == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
>>>>>
>>>>> We should use capacity_orig here. We are checking if the CPU is the max
>>>>> capacity CPU.
>>>>
>>>> I was also wondering what would be the best choice there. If we
>>>> consider that we have only one performance domain with all max
>>>> capacity cpus then I agree that we should keep capacity_orig as we
>>>> can't find a better cpu that would fit. But is it always true that all
>>>> max cpu are tied to the same perf domain ?
This should be the case. Perf domains follow Frequency Domains (FD). So
even if we have the most powerful CPUs in 2 different FDs, only the CPUs
in the FD with the higher max OPP get SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE assigned,
i.e. only they become big CPUs.
>>> Hmm I could be not thinking straight today. But the purpose of this check is to
>>> ensure overutilized can trigger for the common case where a task will always
>>> fit the max capacity cpu (whether it's on a single pd or multiple ones). For
>>> that corner case fits_capacity() should be the only fitness check otherwise
>>> overutilized will never trigger by default.
>>
>> Ok, so I messed up several use cases but in fact both are similar ...
>>
>> if capacity_actual != SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE and uclamp_max ==
>> SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE
>> then uclamp_max_fits = (capacity_actual == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) &&
>> (uclamp_max == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) is false
>> and uclamp_max_fits = !uclamp_max_fits && (uclamp_max <=
>> capacity_actual); is also false because (uclamp_max <=
>> capacity_actual) is always false
>>
>> if capacity_actual == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE and uclamp_max ==
>> SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE
>> then we are the same as with capacity_orig
>
> Right. The condition is becoming less readable, but you're right it doesn't
> change functionality.
+1. 'capacity_actual < SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE' on big CPUs just make them
non-big CPUs.
> Xuewen, could you put something in the commit message please to remind us in
> the future that we thought about this and it is fine?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Qais Yousef
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-05 6:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-24 8:20 [PATCH V2 0/2] sched/fair: Some improvements to feec() Xuewen Yan
2024-06-24 8:20 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] sched/fair: Prevent cpu_busy_time from exceeding actual_cpu_capacity Xuewen Yan
2024-06-25 13:04 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-06-27 2:02 ` Xuewen Yan
2024-06-27 16:15 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-06-28 1:39 ` Qais Yousef
2024-07-01 12:00 ` Xuewen Yan
2024-07-04 17:01 ` Pierre Gondois
2024-07-05 0:10 ` Qais Yousef
2024-06-24 8:20 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] sched/fair: Use actual_cpu_capacity everywhere in util_fits_cpu() Xuewen Yan
2024-06-25 8:46 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-06-28 1:28 ` Qais Yousef
2024-07-01 12:13 ` Xuewen Yan
2024-07-03 11:46 ` Qais Yousef
2024-07-02 13:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-07-03 11:54 ` Qais Yousef
2024-07-03 14:54 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-07-04 23:56 ` Qais Yousef
2024-07-05 6:25 ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2024-07-16 11:56 ` Xuewen Yan
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=66f2ef35-cbc0-4205-96f1-c857efb6f9cd@arm.com \
--to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=di.shen@unisoc.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=ke.wang@unisoc.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.donnefort@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=xuewen.yan94@gmail.com \
--cc=xuewen.yan@unisoc.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®