lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 07/14] sched/core: uclamp: enforce last task UCLAMP_MAX
From
Date
On 08/06/2018 06:39 PM, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> When a util_max clamped task sleeps, its clamp constraints are removed
> from the CPU. However, the blocked utilization on that CPU can still be
> higher than the max clamp value enforced while that task was running.
> This max clamp removal when a CPU is going to be idle could thus allow
> unwanted CPU frequency increases, right while the task is not running.

So 'rq->uclamp.flags == UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE' means CPU is IDLE because
non-clamped tasks are tracked as well ((group_id = 0)).

Maybe this is worth mentioning here?

> This can happen, for example, where there is another (smaller) task
> running on a different CPU of the same frequency domain.
> In this case, when we aggregate the utilization of all the CPUs in a
> shared frequency domain, schedutil can still see the full non clamped
> blocked utilization of all the CPUs and thus eventually increase the
> frequency.
>
> Let's fix this by using:
>
> uclamp_cpu_put_id(UCLAMP_MAX)
> uclamp_cpu_update(last_clamp_value)
>
> to detect when a CPU has no more RUNNABLE clamped tasks and to flag this
> condition. Thus, while a CPU is idle, we can still enforce the last used
> clamp value for it.
>
> To the contrary, we do not track any UCLAMP_MIN since, while a CPU is
> idle, we don't want to enforce any minimum frequency
> Indeed, we rely just on blocked load decay to smoothly reduce the
> frequency.

[...]

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index bc2beedec7bf..ff76b000bbe8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -906,7 +906,8 @@ uclamp_group_find(int clamp_id, unsigned int clamp_value)
> * For the specified clamp index, this method computes the new CPU utilization
> * clamp to use until the next change on the set of RUNNABLE tasks on that CPU.
> */
> -static inline void uclamp_cpu_update(struct rq *rq, int clamp_id)
> +static inline void uclamp_cpu_update(struct rq *rq, int clamp_id,
> + unsigned int last_clamp_value)
> {
> struct uclamp_group *uc_grp = &rq->uclamp.group[clamp_id][0];
> int max_value = UCLAMP_NOT_VALID;
> @@ -924,6 +925,19 @@ static inline void uclamp_cpu_update(struct rq *rq, int clamp_id)

The condition:

if (!uclamp_group_active(uc_grp, group_id))
continue;

in 'for (group_id = 0; group_id <= CONFIG_UCLAMP_GROUPS_COUNT;
++group_id) {}' makes sure that 'max_value == UCLAMP_NOT_VALID' is true
for the if condition (*):


> if (max_value >= SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> break;
> }
> +
> + /*
> + * Just for the UCLAMP_MAX value, in case there are no RUNNABLE
> + * task, we keep the CPU clamped to the last task's clamp value.
> + * This avoids frequency spikes to MAX when one CPU, with an high
> + * blocked utilization, sleeps and another CPU, in the same frequency
> + * domain, do not see anymore the clamp on the first CPU.
> + */
> + if (clamp_id == UCLAMP_MAX && max_value == UCLAMP_NOT_VALID) {
> + rq->uclamp.flags |= UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE;
> + max_value = last_clamp_value;
> + }
> +

(*): So the uc_grp[group_id].value stays last_clamp_value?

What do you do when the blocked utilization decays below this enforced
last_clamp_value on that CPU?

I assume there are plenty of this kind of corner cases because we have
blocked signals (including all tasks) and clamping (including runnable
tasks).

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-16 17:44    [W:0.247 / U:32.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site