linux-kernel - Re: [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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAB8ipk_1-ZMMcaLiLGYBT3N3S_VdeGMhYmCqGytcAwmPE4Ni2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Oct 2021 12:05:27 +0800
From:   Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>
To:     brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/fair: use max_spare_cap_cpu if it is more
 energy efficient

Hi Chunguang

brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com> 于2021年10月21日周四 下午4:24写道：
>
> 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)

this is aimed to prevent the cur_delta < 0, and usuallly, when the
task was put on the max_spare_cpu, the cur_power should be bigger than
base_pd_power,
if the cur_power < base_pd_power, the cpu util may have changed, at
this time, we should keep prev_cpu.

You can look at below discuss and patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210429101948.31224-3-Pierre.Gondois@arm.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAB8ipk_vgtg5d1obH36BYfNLZosbwr2k_U3xnAD4=H5uZt_M_g@mail.gmail.com/



> +                       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
>