From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/16] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: add utilization clamping for FAIR tasks
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:57:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180914135712.GQ1413@e110439-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180914133654.GL24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 14-Sep 15:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 02:19:19PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 14-Sep 11:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Should that not be:
> > >
> > > util = clamp_util(rq, cpu_util_cfs(rq));
> > >
> > > Because if !util might we not still want to enforce the min clamp?
> >
> > If !util CFS tasks should have been gone since a long time
> > (proportional to their estimated utilization) and thus it probably
> > makes sense to not affect further energy efficiency for tasks of other
> > classes.
>
> I don't remember what we do for util for new tasks; but weren't we
> talking about setting that to 0 recently? IIRC the problem was that if
> we start at 1 with util we'll always run new tasks on big cores, or
> something along those lines.
Mmm.. could have been in a recent discussion with Quentin, but I
think I've missed it. I know we have something similar on Android for
similar reasons.
> So new tasks would still trigger this case until they'd accrued enough
> history.
Well, yes and no. New tasks will be clamped which means that if they
are generated from a capped parent (or within a cgroups with a
suitable util_max) they can still live in a smaller capacity CPU
despite their utilization being 1024. Thus, to a certain extend,
UtilClamp could be a fix for the above misbehavior whenever needed.
NOTE: this series does not include tasks biasing bits.
> Either way around, I don't much care at this point except I think it
> would be good to have a comment to record the assumptions.
Sure, will add a comment on that and a warning about possible side
effects on tasks placement
> > > Would that not be more readable as:
> > >
> > > static inline unsigned int uclamp_value(struct rq *rq, int clamp_id)
> > > {
> > > unsigned int val = rq->uclamp.value[clamp_id];
> > >
> > > if (unlikely(val == UCLAMP_NOT_VALID))
> > > val = uclamp_none(clamp_id);
> > >
> > > return val;
> > > }
> >
> > I'm trying to keep consistency in variable names usages by always
> > accessing the rq's clamps via a *uc_cpu to make it easy grepping the
> > code. Does this argument make sense ?
> >
> > On the other side, what you propose above is more easy to read
> > by looking just at that function.... so, if you prefer it better, I'll
> > update it on v5.
>
> I prefer my version, also because it has a single load of the value (yes
> I know about CSE passes). I figure one can always grep for uclamp or
> something.
+1
> > > And how come NOT_VALID is possible? I thought the idea was to always
> > > have all things a valid value.
> >
> > When we update the CPU's clamp for a "newly idle" CPU, there are not
> > tasks refcounting clamps and thus we end up with UCLAMP_NOT_VALID for
> > that CPU. That's how uclamp_cpu_update() is currently encoded.
> >
> > Perhaps we can set the value to uclamp_none(clamp_id) from that
> > function, but I was thinking that perhaps it could be useful to track
> > explicitly that the CPU is now idle.
>
> IIRC you added an explicit flag to track idle somewhere.. to keep the
> last max clamp in effect or something.
Right... that patch was after this one on v3, but know that I've moved
it before we can probably simplify this path.
> I think, but haven't overly thought about this, that if you always
> ensure these things are valid you can avoid a bunch of NOT_VALID
> conditions. And less conditions is always good, right? :-)
Right, will check better all the usages and remove them when not
strictly required.
Cheers,
Patrick
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-14 13:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-28 13:53 [PATCH v4 00/16] Add utilization clamping support Patrick Bellasi
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 01/16] sched/core: uclamp: extend sched_setattr to support utilization clamping Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-05 11:01 ` Juri Lelli
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 02/16] sched/core: uclamp: map TASK's clamp values into CPU's clamp groups Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-05 10:45 ` Juri Lelli
2018-09-06 13:48 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-06 14:13 ` Juri Lelli
2018-09-06 8:17 ` Juri Lelli
2018-09-06 14:00 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-08 23:47 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2018-09-12 10:32 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-12 13:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-12 15:56 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-12 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-12 17:35 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-12 17:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-12 17:52 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-13 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-14 8:51 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-12 16:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-12 17:42 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-13 19:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-14 8:47 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 03/16] sched/core: uclamp: add CPU's clamp groups accounting Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-12 17:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-12 17:44 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-13 19:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-14 9:07 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-14 11:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-14 13:41 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 04/16] sched/core: uclamp: update CPU's refcount on clamp changes Patrick Bellasi
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 05/16] sched/core: uclamp: enforce last task UCLAMP_MAX Patrick Bellasi
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 06/16] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: add utilization clamping for FAIR tasks Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-14 9:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-14 13:19 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-14 13:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-14 13:57 ` Patrick Bellasi [this message]
2018-09-27 10:23 ` Quentin Perret
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 07/16] sched/core: uclamp: extend cpu's cgroup controller Patrick Bellasi
2018-08-28 18:29 ` Randy Dunlap
2018-08-29 8:53 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 08/16] sched/core: uclamp: propagate parent clamps Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-09 3:02 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2018-09-12 12:51 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-12 15:56 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2018-09-11 15:18 ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-11 16:26 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-11 16:28 ` Tejun Heo
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 09/16] sched/core: uclamp: map TG's clamp values into CPU's clamp groups Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-09 18:52 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2018-09-12 14:19 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-12 15:53 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 10/16] sched/core: uclamp: use TG's clamps to restrict Task's clamps Patrick Bellasi
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 11/16] sched/core: uclamp: add system default clamps Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-10 16:20 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2018-09-11 16:46 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-11 19:25 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 12/16] sched/core: uclamp: update CPU's refcount on TG's clamp changes Patrick Bellasi
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 13/16] sched/core: uclamp: use percentage clamp values Patrick Bellasi
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 14/16] sched/core: uclamp: request CAP_SYS_ADMIN by default Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-04 13:47 ` Juri Lelli
2018-09-06 14:40 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-06 14:59 ` Juri Lelli
2018-09-06 17:21 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-14 11:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-14 14:07 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-14 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-17 12:27 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-21 9:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-24 15:14 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-24 15:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-24 17:23 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-24 16:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-24 17:19 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-25 15:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-26 10:43 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-09-27 10:00 ` Quentin Perret
2018-09-26 17:51 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 15/16] sched/core: uclamp: add clamp group discretization support Patrick Bellasi
2018-08-28 13:53 ` [PATCH v4 16/16] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: add utilization clamping for RT tasks Patrick Bellasi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180914135712.GQ1413@e110439-lin \
--to=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=smuckle@google.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=tkjos@google.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).