lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/7] sched/uclamp: Cater for uclamp in find_energy_efficient_cpu()'s early exit condition
Hi Qais

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 3:48 AM Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com> wrote:
>
> If the utilization of the woken up task is 0, we skip the energy
> calculation because it has no impact.
>
> But if the task is boosted (uclamp_min != 0) will have an impact on task
> placement and frequency selection. Only skip if the util is truly
> 0 after applying uclamp values.
>
> Change uclamp_task_cpu() signature to avoid unnecessary additional calls
> to uclamp_eff_get(). feec() is the only user now.
>
> Fixes: 732cd75b8c920 ("sched/fair: Select an energy-efficient CPU on task wake-up")
> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 ++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 499ef7a7288c..a112ca45864c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4057,14 +4057,16 @@ static inline unsigned long task_util_est(struct task_struct *p)
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK
> -static inline unsigned long uclamp_task_util(struct task_struct *p)
> +static inline unsigned long uclamp_task_util(struct task_struct *p,
> + unsigned long uclamp_min,
> + unsigned long uclamp_max)
> {
> - return clamp(task_util_est(p),
> - uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MIN),
> - uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MAX));
> + return clamp(task_util_est(p), uclamp_min, uclamp_max);
> }
> #else
> -static inline unsigned long uclamp_task_util(struct task_struct *p)
> +static inline unsigned long uclamp_task_util(struct task_struct *p,
> + unsigned long uclamp_min,
> + unsigned long uclamp_max)
> {
> return task_util_est(p);
> }
> @@ -6913,7 +6915,7 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> target = prev_cpu;
>
> sync_entity_load_avg(&p->se);
> - if (!task_util_est(p))
> + if (!uclamp_task_util(p, p_util_min, p_util_max))

Is it not enough to just replace the task_util_est with the
uclamp_task_util? If change the definition of uclamp_task_util,
that means it have to get task's uclamp first if user want to call the
function, may increase the code complex farther more?

> goto unlock;
>
> for (; pd; pd = pd->next) {
> --
> 2.25.1
>

BR
---
xuewen.yan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-20 09:40    [W:0.862 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site