lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 11/16] sched/fair: Add uclamp support to energy_compute()
On 22-Jan 12:13, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 Jan 2019 at 10:15:08 (+0000), Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > The Energy Aware Scheduler (AES) estimates the energy impact of waking

[...]

> > + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, pd_mask, cpu_online_mask) {
> > + cfs_util = cpu_util_next(cpu, p, dst_cpu);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Busy time computation: utilization clamping is not
> > + * required since the ratio (sum_util / cpu_capacity)
> > + * is already enough to scale the EM reported power
> > + * consumption at the (eventually clamped) cpu_capacity.
> > + */
>
> Right.
>
> > + sum_util += schedutil_cpu_util(cpu, cfs_util, cpu_cap,
> > + ENERGY_UTIL, NULL);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Performance domain frequency: utilization clamping
> > + * must be considered since it affects the selection
> > + * of the performance domain frequency.
> > + */
>
> So that actually affects the way we deal with RT I think. I assume the
> idea is to say if you don't want to reflect the RT-go-to-max-freq thing
> in EAS (which is what we do now) you should set the min cap for RT to 0.
> Is that correct ?

By default configuration, RT tasks still go to max when uclamp is
enabled, since they get a util_min=1024.

If we want to save power on RT tasks, we can set a smaller util_min...
but not necessarily 0. A util_min=0 for RT tasks means to use just
cpu_util_rt() for that class.

> I'm fine with this conceptually but maybe the specific case of RT should
> be mentioned somewhere in the commit message or so ? I think it's
> important to say that clearly since this patch changes the default
> behaviour.

Default behavior for RT should not be affected. While a capping is
possible for those tasks... where do you see issues ?
Here we are just figuring out what's the capacity the task will run
at, if we will have clamped RT tasks will not be the max but: is that
a problem ?

> > + cpu_util = schedutil_cpu_util(cpu, cfs_util, cpu_cap,
> > + FREQUENCY_UTIL,
> > + cpu == dst_cpu ? p : NULL);
> > + max_util = max(max_util, cpu_util);
> > }
> >
> > energy += em_pd_energy(pd->em_pd, max_util, sum_util);
>
> Thanks,
> Quentin

--
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-22 13:46    [W:0.105 / U:0.836 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site