Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 29 Jan 2023 20:03:59 +0000 | From | Qais Yousef <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/uclamp: Set max_spare_cap_cpu even if max_spare_cap is 0 |
| |
On 01/29/23 16:14, Qais Yousef wrote: > When uclamp_max is being used, the util of the task could be higher than > the spare capacity of the CPU, but due to uclamp_max value we force fit > it there. > > The way the condition for checking for max_spare_cap in > find_energy_efficient_cpu() was constructed; it ignored any CPU that has > its spare_cap less than or _equal_ to max_spare_cap. Since we initialize > max_spare_cap to 0; this lead to never setting max_spare_cap_cpu and > hence ending up never performing compute_energy() for this cluster and > missing an opportunity for a better energy efficient placement to honour > uclamp_max setting. > > max_spare_cap = 0; > cpu_cap = capacity_of(cpu) - task_util(p); // 0 if task_util(p) is high > > ... > > util_fits_cpu(...); // will return true if uclamp_max forces it to fit > > ... > > // this logic will fail to update max_spare_cap_cpu if cpu_cap is 0 > if (cpu_cap > max_spare_cap) { > max_spare_cap = cpu_cap; > max_spare_cap_cpu = cpu; > } > > prev_spare_cap suffers from a similar problem. > > Fix the logic by treating -1UL value as 'not populated' instead of > 0 which is a viable and correct spare capacity value. > > Fixes: 1d42509e475c ("sched/fair: Make EAS wakeup placement consider uclamp restrictions") > Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef (Google) <qyousef@layalina.io> > --- > 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 e29e9ea4cde8..ca2c389d3180 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > @@ -7390,9 +7390,9 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu) > for (; pd; pd = pd->next) { > unsigned long util_min = p_util_min, util_max = p_util_max; > unsigned long cpu_cap, cpu_thermal_cap, util; > - unsigned long cur_delta, max_spare_cap = 0; > + unsigned long cur_delta, max_spare_cap = -1UL; > unsigned long rq_util_min, rq_util_max; > - unsigned long prev_spare_cap = 0; > + unsigned long prev_spare_cap = -1UL; > int max_spare_cap_cpu = -1; > unsigned long base_energy; > int fits, max_fits = -1; > @@ -7457,7 +7457,8 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu) > prev_spare_cap = cpu_cap; > prev_fits = fits; > } else if ((fits > max_fits) || > - ((fits == max_fits) && (cpu_cap > max_spare_cap))) { > + ((fits == max_fits) && > + (cpu_cap > max_spare_cap || max_spare_cap == -1UL) {
Oops. Sorry I just realized I bodged this while rebasing and preparing the patches for posting. There are missing termination parenthesis that will cause compilation errors.
Apologies..
-- Qais Yousef
> /* > * Find the CPU with the maximum spare capacity > * among the remaining CPUs in the performance > @@ -7469,7 +7470,7 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu) > } > } > > - if (max_spare_cap_cpu < 0 && prev_spare_cap == 0) > + if (max_spare_cap_cpu < 0 && prev_spare_cap == -1UL) > continue; > > eenv_pd_busy_time(&eenv, cpus, p); > @@ -7477,7 +7478,7 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu) > base_energy = compute_energy(&eenv, pd, cpus, p, -1); > > /* Evaluate the energy impact of using prev_cpu. */ > - if (prev_spare_cap > 0) { > + if (prev_spare_cap != -1UL) { > prev_delta = compute_energy(&eenv, pd, cpus, p, > prev_cpu); > /* CPU utilization has changed */ > @@ -7489,7 +7490,8 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu) > } > > /* Evaluate the energy impact of using max_spare_cap_cpu. */ > - if (max_spare_cap_cpu >= 0 && max_spare_cap > prev_spare_cap) { > + if (max_spare_cap_cpu >= 0 && > + (max_spare_cap > prev_spare_cap || prev_spare_cap == -1UL)) { > /* Current best energy cpu fits better */ > if (max_fits < best_fits) > continue; > -- > 2.25.1 >
|  |