Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/uclamp: Set max_spare_cap_cpu even if max_spare_cap is 0

From: Vincent Guittot
Date: Mon Jan 30 2023 - 09:44:16 EST


On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 at 17:14, Qais Yousef <qyousef@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> When uclamp_max is being used, the util of the task could be higher than
> the spare capacity of the CPU, but due to uclamp_max value we force fit
> it there.
>
> The way the condition for checking for max_spare_cap in
> find_energy_efficient_cpu() was constructed; it ignored any CPU that has
> its spare_cap less than or _equal_ to max_spare_cap. Since we initialize
> max_spare_cap to 0; this lead to never setting max_spare_cap_cpu and
> hence ending up never performing compute_energy() for this cluster and
> missing an opportunity for a better energy efficient placement to honour
> uclamp_max setting.
>
> max_spare_cap = 0;
> cpu_cap = capacity_of(cpu) - task_util(p); // 0 if task_util(p) is high
>
> ...
>
> util_fits_cpu(...); // will return true if uclamp_max forces it to fit
>
> ...
>
> // this logic will fail to update max_spare_cap_cpu if cpu_cap is 0
> if (cpu_cap > max_spare_cap) {
> max_spare_cap = cpu_cap;
> max_spare_cap_cpu = cpu;
> }
>
> prev_spare_cap suffers from a similar problem.
>
> Fix the logic by treating -1UL value as 'not populated' instead of
> 0 which is a viable and correct spare capacity value.
>
> Fixes: 1d42509e475c ("sched/fair: Make EAS wakeup placement consider uclamp restrictions")
> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef (Google) <qyousef@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 ++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index e29e9ea4cde8..ca2c389d3180 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -7390,9 +7390,9 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> for (; pd; pd = pd->next) {
> unsigned long util_min = p_util_min, util_max = p_util_max;
> unsigned long cpu_cap, cpu_thermal_cap, util;
> - unsigned long cur_delta, max_spare_cap = 0;
> + unsigned long cur_delta, max_spare_cap = -1UL;
> unsigned long rq_util_min, rq_util_max;
> - unsigned long prev_spare_cap = 0;
> + unsigned long prev_spare_cap = -1UL;
> int max_spare_cap_cpu = -1;
> unsigned long base_energy;
> int fits, max_fits = -1;
> @@ -7457,7 +7457,8 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> prev_spare_cap = cpu_cap;
> prev_fits = fits;
> } else if ((fits > max_fits) ||
> - ((fits == max_fits) && (cpu_cap > max_spare_cap))) {
> + ((fits == max_fits) &&
> + (cpu_cap > max_spare_cap || max_spare_cap == -1UL) {

Can't we use a signed comparison to include the case of max_spare_cap
== -1 in cpu_cap > max_spare_cap ?

> /*
> * Find the CPU with the maximum spare capacity
> * among the remaining CPUs in the performance
> @@ -7469,7 +7470,7 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> }
> }
>
> - if (max_spare_cap_cpu < 0 && prev_spare_cap == 0)
> + if (max_spare_cap_cpu < 0 && prev_spare_cap == -1UL)
> continue;
>
> eenv_pd_busy_time(&eenv, cpus, p);
> @@ -7477,7 +7478,7 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> base_energy = compute_energy(&eenv, pd, cpus, p, -1);
>
> /* Evaluate the energy impact of using prev_cpu. */
> - if (prev_spare_cap > 0) {
> + if (prev_spare_cap != -1UL) {
> prev_delta = compute_energy(&eenv, pd, cpus, p,
> prev_cpu);
> /* CPU utilization has changed */
> @@ -7489,7 +7490,8 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> }
>
> /* Evaluate the energy impact of using max_spare_cap_cpu. */
> - if (max_spare_cap_cpu >= 0 && max_spare_cap > prev_spare_cap) {
> + if (max_spare_cap_cpu >= 0 &&
> + (max_spare_cap > prev_spare_cap || prev_spare_cap == -1UL)) {
> /* Current best energy cpu fits better */
> if (max_fits < best_fits)
> continue;
> --
> 2.25.1
>