lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Select an energy-efficient CPU on task wake-up
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Patrick Bellasi
<patrick.bellasi@arm.com> wrote:
[..]
>> > +static inline bool wake_energy(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
>> > +{
>> > + struct sched_domain *sd;
>> > +
>> > + if (!static_branch_unlikely(&sched_energy_present))
>> > + return false;
>> > +
>> > + sd = rcu_dereference_sched(cpu_rq(prev_cpu)->sd);
>> > + if (!sd || sd_overutilized(sd))
>>
>> Shouldn't you check for the SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY flag here?
>
> I think that should be already covered by the static key check
> above...
>

I understand there is an assumption like that but I was wondering if
its more future proof for checking it explicity. I am Ok if everyone
thinks its a valid assumption...

>>
>> > + return false;
>> > +
>> > + return true;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > /*
>> > * select_task_rq_fair: Select target runqueue for the waking task in domains
>> > * that have the 'sd_flag' flag set. In practice, this is SD_BALANCE_WAKE,
>> > @@ -6529,18 +6583,22 @@ static int
>> > select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int sd_flag, int wake_flags)
>> > {
>> > struct sched_domain *tmp, *affine_sd = NULL, *sd = NULL;
>> > + struct sched_domain *energy_sd = NULL;
>> > int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> > int new_cpu = prev_cpu;
>> > - int want_affine = 0;
>> > + int want_affine = 0, want_energy = 0;
>> > int sync = (wake_flags & WF_SYNC) && !(current->flags & PF_EXITING);
>> >
>> > + rcu_read_lock();
>> > +
>> > if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) {
>> > record_wakee(p);
>> > + want_energy = wake_energy(p, prev_cpu);
>> > want_affine = !wake_wide(p) && !wake_cap(p, cpu, prev_cpu)
>> > - && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &p->cpus_allowed);
>> > + && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &p->cpus_allowed)
>> > + && !want_energy;
>> > }
>> >
>> > - rcu_read_lock();
>> > for_each_domain(cpu, tmp) {
>> > if (!(tmp->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
>> > break;
>> > @@ -6555,6 +6613,14 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int sd_flag, int wake_f
>> > break;
>> > }
>> >
>> > + /*
>> > + * Energy-aware task placement is performed on the highest
>> > + * non-overutilized domain spanning over cpu and prev_cpu.
>> > + */
>> > + if (want_energy && !sd_overutilized(tmp) &&
>> > + cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sched_domain_span(tmp)))
>>
>> Shouldn't you check for the SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY flag here for tmp level?
>
> ... and this then should be covered by the previous check in
> wake_energy(), which sets want_energy.

Right, but in a scenario which probably doesn't exist today where we
have both SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY and !SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY domains in the
hierarchy for which want_energy = 1, I was thinking if its more future
proof to check it and not make assumptions...

>>
>> > + energy_sd = tmp;
>> > +
>> > if (tmp->flags & sd_flag)
>> > sd = tmp;
>> > else if (!want_affine)
>> > @@ -6586,6 +6652,8 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int sd_flag, int wake_f
>> > if (want_affine)
>> > current->recent_used_cpu = cpu;
>> > }
>> > + } else if (energy_sd) {
>> > + new_cpu = find_energy_efficient_cpu(energy_sd, p, prev_cpu);
>>
>> Even if want_affine = 0 (want_energy = 1), we can have sd = NULL if
>> sd_flag and tmp->flags don't match. In this case we wont enter the EAS
>> selection path because sd will be = NULL. So should you be setting sd
>> = NULL explicitly if energy_sd != NULL , or rather do the if
>> (energy_sd) before doing the if (!sd) ?
>
> That's the same think I was also proposing in my reply to this patch.
> But in my case the point was mainly to make the code easier to
> follow... which at the end it's also to void all the consideration on
> dependencies you describe above.
>
> Joel, can you have a look at what I proposed... I was not entirely
> sure that we miss some code paths doing it that way.

Replied to this in the other thread.

thanks,

- Joel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-22 21:19    [W:0.141 / U:1.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site