Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: use signed long when compute energy delta in eas

[Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com>]

Hi
>
> Hi,
> > >
> > > This patch-set is not significantly improving the execution time of
> > > feec(). The results we have so far are an improvement of 5-10% in
> > > execution time, with feec() being executed in < 10us. So the gain is not
> > > spectacular.
> >
> > well， I meaned to cache all util value and compute energy with caches,
> > when
> > (cpu==dst_cpu), use caches instead of updating util, and do not get
> > util with function:
> >  "effective_cpu_util()", to compute util with cache.
> > I add more parameters into pd_cache:
> > struct pd_cache {
> >         unsigned long util;
> >         unsigned long util_est;
> >         unsigned long util_cfs;
> >         unsigned long util_irq;
> >         unsigned long util_rt;
> >         unsigned long util_dl;
> >         unsigned long bw_dl;
> >         unsigned long freq_util;
> >         unsigned long nrg_util;
> > };
> > In this way, it can avoid util update while feec. I tested with it,
> > and the negative delta disappeared.
> > Maybe this is not a good method, but it does work.
> If I understand correctly, you put all the fields used by
> core.c:effective_cpu_util() in the caches, allowing to have values not
> subject to updates.
Yes.
> core.c:effective_cpu_util() isn't only called from
> fair.c:compute_energy(). It is used in the cpufreq_schedutil.c and
> cpufreq_cooling.c (through core.c:sched_cpu_util()).
> Did you have to duplicate core.c:effective_cpu_util() to have a second
> version using the caches ? If yes, I think the function was meant to be
> unique so that all the utilization estimations go through the same path.
>
I defined a new function to distinguish it from the effective_cpu_util.

> If your concern is to avoid negative delta, I think just bailing out
> when this happens should be sufficient. As shown in the last message,
> having a wrong placement should not happen that often, plus the prev_cpu
> should be used which should be ok.
In your patch, you didn't actually choose the prev_cpu. you return (-1);

> If you want to cache the values, I think a stronger justification will
> be asked: this seems to be a big modification compared to the initial
> issue, knowing that another simpler solution is available (i.e. bailing
> out). I was not able to prove there was a significant gain in the
> find_energy_efficient_cpu() execution time, but I would be happy if you
> can, or if you find other arguments.
Yes, you are right, perhaps there is indeed no need for such a big modification.

Regards