linux-kernel - [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: use max_spare_cap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1634804594-4163-1-git-send-email-brookxu.cn@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:23:14 +0800
From:   brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com>
To:     mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: use max_spare_cap_cpu if it is more energy efficient

From: Chunguang Xu <brookxu@...cent.com>

When debugging EAS, I found that if the task is migrated to
max_spare_cap_cpu, even if the power consumption of pd is lower,
we still put the task on prev_cpu. Maybe we should fix it.

Signed-off-by: Chunguang Xu <brookxu@...cent.com>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index ff69f245b939..2ae7e03de6d2 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6867,8 +6867,10 @@ 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) {
 			cur_delta = compute_energy(p, max_spare_cap_cpu, pd);
-			if (cur_delta < base_energy_pd)
+			if (cur_delta < base_energy_pd) {
+				target = max_spare_cap_cpu;
 				goto unlock;
+			}
 			cur_delta -= base_energy_pd;
 			if (cur_delta < best_delta) {
 				best_delta = cur_delta;
-- 
2.30.0