[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <xhsmhwn8avd07.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2022 17:35:36 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>,
Jonathan JMChen <Jonathan.JMChen@...iatek.com>,
Hank <han.lin@...iatek.com>, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] sched/fair: Consider capacity inversion in
util_fits_cpu()
On 04/08/22 15:36, Qais Yousef wrote:
> We do consider thermal pressure in util_fits_cpu() for uclamp_min only.
> With the exception of the biggest cores which by definition are the max
> performance point of the system and all tasks by definition should fit.
>
> Even under thermal pressure, the capacity of the biggest CPU is the
> highest in the system and should still fit every task. Except when it
> reaches capacity inversion point, then this is no longer true.
>
> We can handle this by using the inverted capacity as capacity_orig in
> util_fits_cpu(). Which not only addresses the problem above, but also
> ensure uclamp_max now considers the inverted capacity. Force fitting
> a task when a CPU is in this adverse state will contribute to making the
> thermal throttling last longer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 +++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index cb32dc9a057f..77ae343e32a3 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4293,12 +4293,16 @@ static inline int util_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
> * For uclamp_max, we can tolerate a drop in performance level as the
> * goal is to cap the task. So it's okay if it's getting less.
> *
> - * In case of capacity inversion, which is not handled yet, we should
> - * honour the inverted capacity for both uclamp_min and uclamp_max all
> - * the time.
> + * In case of capacity inversion we should honour the inverted capacity
> + * for both uclamp_min and uclamp_max all the time.
> */
> - capacity_orig = capacity_orig_of(cpu);
> - capacity_orig_thermal = capacity_orig - arch_scale_thermal_pressure(cpu);
> + capacity_orig = cpu_in_capacity_inversion(cpu);
> + if (capacity_orig) {
> + capacity_orig_thermal = capacity_orig;
> + } else {
> + capacity_orig = capacity_orig_of(cpu);
> + capacity_orig_thermal = capacity_orig - arch_scale_thermal_pressure(cpu);
> + }
>
IIUC the rq->cpu_capacity_inverted computation in update_cpu_capacity() can be
summarised as:
- If there is a PD with equal cap_orig, but higher effective (orig - thermal)
capacity
OR
there is a PD with pd_cap_orig > cpu_effective_cap:
rq->cpu_capacity_inverted = capacity_orig - thermal_load_avg(rq)
- Else:
rq->cpu_capacity_inverted = 0
Then, the code above uses either rq->cpu_capacity_inverted if it is
non-zero, otherwise:
capacity_orig - arch_scale_thermal_pressure(cpu);
Why use average thermal pressure in one case, and use instantaneous
thermal pressure in the other?
Can't we get rid of rq->cpu_capacity_inverted and replace this whole thing
with an unconditional
capacity_orig_thermal = capacity_orig_of(cpu) - thermal_load_avg(cpu_rq(cpu));
?
> /*
> * We want to force a task to fit a cpu as implied by uclamp_max.
> --
> 2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists