Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCeMJ0HD1V5AOXozFRtE0eT4b=oks=XPVg2-4JHyxjOZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 18:49:43 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, 
	dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, 
	mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	pierre.gondois@....com, kprateek.nayak@....com, qyousef@...alina.io, 
	hongyan.xia2@....com, luis.machado@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6 v7] sched/fair: Add EAS and idle cpu push trigger

On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 at 14:53, Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com> wrote:
>
> Some nits below for now
>
> On 12/1/25 09:13, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > EAS is based on wakeup events to efficiently place tasks on the system, but
> > there are cases where a task doesn't have wakeup events anymore or at a far
> > too low pace. For such cases, we check if it's worht pushing hte task on
>
> worth
> the

+1

>
> > another CPUs instead of putting it back in the enqueued list.
> >
> > Wake up events remain the main way to migrate tasks but we now detect
> > situation where a task is stuck on a CPU by checking that its utilization
> > is larger than the max available compute capacity (max cpu capacity or
> > uclamp max setting)
> >
> > When the system becomes overutilized and some CPUs are idle, we try to
> > push tasks instead of waiting periodic load balance.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c     | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  kernel/sched/topology.c |  3 ++
> >  2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 9af8d0a61856..e9e1d0c05805 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -6990,6 +6990,7 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> >  }
> >
> >  static void fair_remove_pushable_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p);
> > +
>
> This doesn't belong here

yes, don't know what I mess up with my patches

>
> >  /*
> >   * Basically dequeue_task_fair(), except it can deal with dequeue_entity()
> >   * failing half-way through and resume the dequeue later.
> > @@ -8499,8 +8500,72 @@ static inline bool sched_push_task_enabled(void)
> >       return static_branch_unlikely(&sched_push_task);
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline bool task_stuck_on_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> > +{
> > +     unsigned long max_capa, util;
> > +
> > +     max_capa = min(get_actual_cpu_capacity(cpu),
> > +                    uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MAX));
> > +     util = max(task_util_est(p), task_runnable(p));
> > +
> > +     /*
> > +      * Return true only if the task might not sleep/wakeup because of a low
> > +      * compute capacity. Tasks, which wake up regularly, will be handled by
> > +      * feec().
> > +      */
> > +     return (util > max_capa);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline bool sched_energy_push_task(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
> > +{
> > +     if (!sched_energy_enabled())
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     if (is_rd_overutilized(rq->rd))
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     if (task_stuck_on_cpu(p, cpu_of(rq)))
> > +             return true;
> > +
> > +     if (!task_fits_cpu(p, cpu_of(rq)))
> > +             return true;
> > +
> > +     return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline bool sched_idle_push_task(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
> > +{
> > +     if (rq->nr_running == 1)
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     if (!is_rd_overutilized(rq->rd))
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     /* If there are idle cpus in the llc then try to push the task on it */
> > +     if (test_idle_cores(cpu_of(rq)))
> > +             return true;
> > +
> > +     return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +
> >  static bool fair_push_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> >  {
> > +     if (!task_on_rq_queued(p))
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     if (p->se.sched_delayed)
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     if (sched_energy_push_task(p, rq))
> > +             return true;
> > +
> > +     if (sched_idle_push_task(p, rq))
> > +             return true;
> > +
> >       return false;
> >  }
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > index cf643a5ddedd..5edf7b117ed9 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> > @@ -391,10 +391,13 @@ static void sched_energy_set(bool has_eas)
> >               if (sched_debug())
> >                       pr_info("%s: stopping EAS\n", __func__);
> >               static_branch_disable_cpuslocked(&sched_energy_present);
> > +             static_branch_dec_cpuslocked(&sched_push_task);
> > +     } else if (has_eas && !sched_energy_enabled()) {
> >       } else if (has_eas && !static_branch_unlikely(&sched_energy_present)) {
>
> This could just be (has_eas && && sched_energy_enabled() && !static_branch_unlikely(&sched_energy_present))
> to avoid the awkward else if above

Argh, I messed up something with this patchset and another pending
cleanup patch when I rebased it.
It should be :

                static_branch_disable_cpuslocked(&sched_energy_present);
+                static_branch_dec_cpuslocked(&sched_push_task);
        } else if (has_eas && !static_branch_unlikely(&sched_energy_present)) {

I need to rerun the bench to check that the results of the cover
letter are still correct.

 That's what happens when you want to send a patchset too quickly ...


>
> >               if (sched_debug())
> >                       pr_info("%s: starting EAS\n", __func__);
> >               static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&sched_energy_present);
> > +             static_branch_inc_cpuslocked(&sched_push_task);
> >       }
> >  }
> >
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists