[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5511A741.4080203@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:04:49 +0000
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>
CC: "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"yuyang.du@...el.com" <yuyang.du@...el.com>,
"preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"mturquette@...aro.org" <mturquette@...aro.org>,
"nico@...aro.org" <nico@...aro.org>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFCv3 PATCH 42/48] sched: Introduce energy awareness into find_busiest_queue
On 24/03/15 15:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 06:31:19PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -7216,6 +7216,37 @@ static struct rq *find_busiest_queue(struct lb_env *env,
>> unsigned long busiest_load = 0, busiest_capacity = 1;
>> int i;
>>
>> + if (env->use_ea) {
>> + struct rq *costliest = NULL;
>> + unsigned long costliest_usage = 1024, costliest_energy = 1;
>> +
>> + for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_group_cpus(group), env->cpus) {
>> + unsigned long usage = get_cpu_usage(i);
>> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(i);
>> + struct sched_domain *sd = rcu_dereference(rq->sd);
>> + struct energy_env eenv = {
>> + .sg_top = sd->groups,
>> + .usage_delta = 0,
>> + .src_cpu = -1,
>> + .dst_cpu = -1,
>> + };
>> + unsigned long energy = sched_group_energy(&eenv);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * We're looking for the minimal cpu efficiency
>> + * min(u_i / e_i), crosswise multiplication leads to
>> + * u_i * e_j < u_j * e_i with j as previous minimum.
>> + */
>> + if (usage * costliest_energy < costliest_usage * energy) {
>> + costliest_usage = usage;
>> + costliest_energy = energy;
>> + costliest = rq;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + return costliest;
>> + }
>> +
>> for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_group_cpus(group), env->cpus) {
>> unsigned long capacity, wl;
>> enum fbq_type rt;
>
> So I've thought about parametrizing the whole load balance thing to
> avoid things like this.
>
> Irrespective of whether we balance on pure load or another metric we
> have the same structure, only different units plugged in.
>
> I've not really spend too much time on it to see what it would look
> like, but I think it would be a good avenue to investigate to avoid
> patches like this.
Yes, although I tried to keep the EAS specific code in lb small, w/o
such an abstraction the code becomes very quickly pretty ugly.
So far I see the following parameters for such a 'unit':
conv. CFS vs. EAS:
(weighted) load vs. (cpu) usage
(cpu) capacity vs. (group) energy
(per task) imbalance vs. (per task) energy diff
For me this 'unit' is very close to the existing struct lb_env. Not sure
yet what to do with s[dg]_lb_stats here? So far they obviously only
contain data necessary for conv. CFS.
But I assume some of the if/else conditions in the lb code path
(load_balance, fbg, update_s[dg]_lb_stats, fbq, detach_tasks, acive lb)
will stay 'unit' specific.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists