From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758534AbcGKLNu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:13:50 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:49722 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752525AbcGKLNs (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:13:48 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:13:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, yuyang.du@intel.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, mgalbraith@suse.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] sched/fair: Let asymmetric cpu configurations
 balance at wake-up
Message-ID: <20160711111344.GO30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1466615004-3503-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
 <1466615004-3503-8-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1466615004-3503-8-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 06:03:18PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Currently, SD_WAKE_AFFINE always takes priority over wakeup balancing if
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE is set on the sched_domains. For asymmetric
> configurations SD_WAKE_AFFINE is only desirable if the waking task's
> compute demand (utilization) is suitable for all the cpu capacities
> available within the SD_WAKE_AFFINE sched_domain. If not, let wakeup
> balancing take over (find_idlest_{group, cpu}()).

I think I tripped over this one the last time around, and I'm not sure
this Changelog is any clearer.

This is about the case where the waking cpu and prev_cpu are both in the
'wrong' cluster, right?

> This patch makes affine wake-ups conditional on whether both the waker
> cpu and prev_cpu has sufficient capacity for the waking task, or not.
> 
> It is assumed that the sched_group(s) containing the waker cpu and
> prev_cpu only contain cpu with the same capacity (homogeneous).

> 
> Ideally, we shouldn't set 'want_affine' in the first place, but we don't
> know if SD_BALANCE_WAKE is enabled on the sched_domain(s) until we start
> traversing them.

Is this again more fallout from that weird ASYM_CAP thing?

> +static int wake_cap(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int prev_cpu)
> +{
> +	long min_cap, max_cap;
> +
> +	min_cap = min(capacity_orig_of(prev_cpu), capacity_orig_of(cpu));
> +	max_cap = cpu_rq(cpu)->rd->max_cpu_capacity;
> +
> +	/* Minimum capacity is close to max, no need to abort wake_affine */
> +	if (max_cap - min_cap < max_cap >> 3)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	return min_cap * 1024 < task_util(p) * capacity_margin;
> +}

I'm most puzzled by these inequalities, how, why ?

I would figure you'd compare task_util to the current remaining util of
the small group, and if it fits, place it there. This seems to do
something entirely different.