[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1cac0d16-9f50-ed30-2460-340b077faa57@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:29:26 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"Cc: Steve Muckle" <smuckle@...gle.com>, adharmap@...cinc.com,
"Kannan, Saravana" <skannan@...cinc.com>, pkondeti@...eaurora.org,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
currojerez@...eup.net, Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/14] sched: Add over-utilization/tipping point
indicator
On 08/06/2018 12:33 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 12:08, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/06/2018 10:40 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 17:55, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Friday 03 Aug 2018 at 15:49:24 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 10:18, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday 03 Aug 2018 at 09:48:47 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 18:59, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> I think we're discussing two different things right now:
>>>> 1. Should forkees go in find_energy_efficient_cpu() ?
>>>> 2. Should forkees have 0 of initial util_avg when EAS is enabled ?
>>>
>>> It's the same topic: How EAS should consider a newly created task ?
>>>
>>> For now, we let the "performance" mode selects a CPU. This CPU will
>>> most probably be worst CPU from a EAS pov because it's the idlest CPU
>>> in the idlest group which is the opposite of what EAS tries to do
>>>
>>> The current behavior is :
>>> For every new task, the cpu selection is done assuming it's a heavy
>>> task with the max possible load_avg, and it looks for the idlest cpu.
>>> This means that if the system is lightly loaded, scheduler will select
>>> most probably a idle big core.
>>
>> AFAICS, task load doesn't seem to be used for find_idlest_cpu() (
>> find_idlest_group() and find_idlest_group_cpu()). So the forkee
>> (SD_BALANCE_FORK) is placed independently of his task load.
>
> hmm ... so what is used if load or runnable load are not used ?
> find_idlest_group() uses load and runnable load but skip spare
> capacity in case of fork
Yes, runnable load and load are used, but from the cpus, not from the task.
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists