[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240618145851.je4a7cu4ltrt3qxa@airbuntu>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:58:51 +0100
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
To: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>
Cc: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
vincent.donnefort@....com, ke.wang@...soc.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, christian.loehle@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prevent cpu_busy_time from exceeding
actual_cpu_capacity
On 06/17/24 12:03, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > Sorry, I miss the "fits_capacity() use capacity_of()", and without
> > uclamp_max, the rd is over-utilized,
> > and would not use feec().
> > But I notice the uclamp_max, if the rq's uclamp_max is smaller than
> > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE,
> > and is bigger than actual_cpu_capacity, the util_fits_cpu() would
> > return true, and the rd is not over-utilized.
> > Is this setting intentional?
>
> Hmm. To a great extent yes. We didn't want to take all types of rq pressure
> into account for uclamp_max. But this corner case could be debatable.
>
> Is this the source of your problem? If you change util_fits_cpu() to return
> false here, would this fix the problem you're seeing?
FWIW, if this happens due to uclamp_max, then this patch to do the capping is
still needed.
I think it's good to understand first how we end up in feec() when a CPU is
supposed to be overutlized. uclamp_max is the only way to override this
decision AFAICT..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists