linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>,
	Kajetan Puchalski <kajetan.puchalski@arm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@google.com>,
	Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
	Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@quicinc.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched: Consider CPU contention in frequency & load-balance busiest CPU selection
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 19:11:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f4501e45-3cfc-b605-b065-5693427ab877@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDh_aQn15to7E9JypVXarFVcEL+jiWJMV6J7-Gijj9SyQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 03/05/2023 18:08, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 17:50, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Use new cpu_boosted_util_cfs() instead of cpu_util_cfs().
>>
>> The former returns max(util_avg, runnable_avg) capped by max CPU
>> capacity. CPU contention is thereby considered through runnable_avg.
>>
>> The change in load-balance only affects migration type `migrate_util`.
> 
> would be good to get some figures to show the benefit

Yes. Will add JankbenchX on Pixel6 for sugov_get_util() and `perf bench
sched messaging` on Ampere Altra with the next version.

>> Suggested-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c |  3 ++-
>>  kernel/sched/fair.c              |  2 +-
>>  kernel/sched/sched.h             | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> index e3211455b203..728b186cd367 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> @@ -158,7 +158,8 @@ static void sugov_get_util(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
>>         struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu);
>>
>>         sg_cpu->bw_dl = cpu_bw_dl(rq);
>> -       sg_cpu->util = effective_cpu_util(sg_cpu->cpu, cpu_util_cfs(sg_cpu->cpu),
>> +       sg_cpu->util = effective_cpu_util(sg_cpu->cpu,
>> +                                         cpu_boosted_util_cfs(sg_cpu->cpu),
> 
> Shouldn't we have a similar change in feec to estimate correctly which
> OPP/ freq will be selected by schedutil ?

Yes, this should be more correct. Schedutil and EAS should see the world
the same way.

But IMHO only for the

find_energy_efficient_cpu()
  compute_energy()
    eenv_pd_max_util()
      util = cpu_util_next(..., p, ...)
      effective_cpu_util(..., util, FREQUENCY_UTIL, ...)
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
case.

Not sure what I do for the task contribution? We use
task_util(p)/_task_util_est(p) inside cpu_util_next().
Do I have to consider p->se.avg.runnable_avg as well?

I don't think that we have a testcase showing any diff for this change
individually though.

[...]

  reply	other threads:[~2023-05-04 17:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-06 15:50 [PATCH 0/1] sched: Consider CPU contention in frequency & load-balance busiest CPU selection Dietmar Eggemann
2023-04-06 15:50 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Dietmar Eggemann
2023-04-29 14:58   ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-05-03 17:13     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-05-04 15:23       ` Qais Yousef
2023-05-11 15:25         ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-05-15 19:18           ` Qais Yousef
2023-05-03 16:08   ` Vincent Guittot
2023-05-04 17:11     ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2023-05-05  8:22       ` Vincent Guittot
2023-05-05 18:16         ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-05-05  7:10   ` Chen Yu
2023-05-05 18:02     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-05-07  2:19       ` Chen Yu

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=f4501e45-3cfc-b605-b065-5693427ab877@arm.com \
    --to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=adharmap@quicinc.com \
    --cc=kajetan.puchalski@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
    --cc=vdonnefort@google.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@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).