From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AABEBC54E94 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 08:26:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234969AbjAYI0f (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jan 2023 03:26:35 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60282 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232745AbjAYI0d (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jan 2023 03:26:33 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1032.google.com (mail-pj1-x1032.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1032]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76168366AB for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 00:26:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1032.google.com with SMTP id m7-20020a17090a71c700b0022c0c070f2eso555465pjs.4 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 00:26:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=LgCyJ0JIbzlBz0P4o9IQnpeiV1wz86DjUPsFHIQ6zOw=; b=DwAcjuNFKn4Ga9kQ/yRFOKkH/baTYHVQDjyNI6X9oqNgYzKJ7bsFFyA58174bY1DAZ YsCjt4gMZELUKUwSo2WQWiWzLiID5o2atruMCJoytFJh5RAWwLWjcehvkLMekqgqy4qa y2h9h7rxay2yQOy5MGVeyYTEKRpv3axiUvyGt3R7fZ/IlKXNjeqkzMCzMyjJ8AfBKwfB UXqujQp2x7C4V0gfvfBtJ3gQ9zHi7DcPhikT95e/CVrh3+PAuKK5ieY7X8bPqEAxua8U UPYdDoUxUE1z1CPIDU/X1rG3+ApSCRNcbXNjBIyHtG+mGpv3Vfkq9hIj93kYHOS3Jwpp n7pA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=LgCyJ0JIbzlBz0P4o9IQnpeiV1wz86DjUPsFHIQ6zOw=; b=0vpPLPOrVUAr3s5UAlW0Azmq71cKpwnJCxjbFpWW+cQjg+gqsrfF+LSxRqPTvy1q2s qCf9h3kauf/gDGACLqjNb2+hkYk8505GDXnk4nxr1P+5leu6Wg/vLtD9xpxg2r7WdLsE OlKOxOMSl75wQYCXbV9grEKP0OUdZxlc31EMyen102X4jkCAme7OLR32sMID8VIcUzZx p072xucAxVhtKvG5TT0L6dx5GbMG231RiL5tHvNEGX3P3Mw9bOrxLoWHn2Sc8i7gtf29 5n4IeGuYG/FRk61FCJxN1CQ5EYszl5ST0YbEsdS4MPqZZ1pp695NbE3lcXUf5jjvSPSJ kPYA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kpHKqMxSmGcAoFGNQA28/KEBEHiL4IvuriyiKU1apk1i/zOxtFd pXD/NBVTAQ5Q8boogE01MvB4x1CwGCW3/xjdjUbRqQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXti9F1jCy17OafGrNTn34a99NxlHzxJXktX0eBliMRumKhw54WdTj/3eGIDEMDGLeZkG3jaCWBdBRB0oyKy17E= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:c004:b0:227:1f55:158d with SMTP id p4-20020a17090ac00400b002271f55158dmr3776265pjt.92.1674635191798; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 00:26:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230119174244.2059628-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: From: Vincent Guittot Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 09:26:20 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/fair: unlink misfit task from cpu overutilized To: Kajetan Puchalski Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, qyousef@layalina.io, rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, vschneid@redhat.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lukasz.luba@arm.com, wvw@google.com, xuewen.yan94@gmail.com, han.lin@mediatek.com, Jonathan.JMChen@mediatek.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 at 13:10, Kajetan Puchalski wrote: > > > By taking into account uclamp_min, the 1:1 relation between task misfit > > and cpu overutilized is no more true as a task with a small util_avg may > > not fit a high capacity cpu because of uclamp_min constraint. > > > > Add a new state in util_fits_cpu() to reflect the case that task would fit > > a CPU except for the uclamp_min hint which is a performance requirement. > > > > Use -1 to reflect that a CPU doesn't fit only because of uclamp_min so we > > can use this new value to take additional action to select the best CPU > > that doesn't match uclamp_min hint. > > > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot > > --- > > > > Change since v3: > > - Keep current condition for uclamp_max_fits in util_fits_cpu() > > - Update some comments > > That one condition change from v3 did fix the overutilization issues so > good news on that front :) > > 1. GB5 > > +-----------------+-------------------------+--------+-----------+ > | metric | kernel | value | perc_diff | > +-----------------+-------------------------+--------+-----------+ > | multicore_score | baseline | 2765.4 | 0.0% | > | multicore_score | baseline_ufc | 2704.3 | -2.21% | <-- current mainline regression > | multicore_score | ufc_patched_v4 | 2839.8 | 2.69% | <-- new score improvement > +-----------------+-------------------------+--------+-----------+ > > +--------------+--------+-------------------------+--------+-----------+ > | chan_name | metric | kernel | value | perc_diff | > +--------------+--------+-------------------------+--------+-----------+ > | total_power | gmean | baseline | 2664.0 | 0.0% | > | total_power | gmean | baseline_ufc | 2621.5 | -1.6% | > | total_power | gmean | ufc_patched_v4 | 2729.0 | 2.44% | > +--------------+--------+-------------------------+--------+-----------+ > > 2. Jankbench > > +--------+---------------+------------------------------+-------+-----------+ > | metric | variable | kernel | value | perc_diff | > +--------+---------------+------------------------------+-------+-----------+ > | gmean | mean_duration | baseline_60hz | 14.6 | 0.0% | > | gmean | mean_duration | baseline_ufc_60hz | 15.2 | 3.83% | > | gmean | mean_duration | ufc_patched_v4_60hz | 14.0 | -3.98% | > +--------+---------------+------------------------------+-------+-----------+ > > +--------+-----------+------------------------------+-------+-----------+ > | metric | variable | kernel | value | perc_diff | > +--------+-----------+------------------------------+-------+-----------+ > | gmean | jank_perc | baseline_60hz | 1.9 | 0.0% | > | gmean | jank_perc | baseline_ufc_60hz | 2.2 | 15.39% | > | gmean | jank_perc | ufc_patched_v4_60hz | 1.8 | -5.67% | > +--------+-----------+------------------------------+-------+-----------+ > > +--------------+--------+------------------------------+-------+-----------+ > | chan_name | metric | kernel | value | perc_diff | > +--------------+--------+------------------------------+-------+-----------+ > | total_power | gmean | baseline_60hz | 135.9 | 0.0% | > | total_power | gmean | baseline_ufc_60hz | 155.7 | 14.61% | <-- current mainline regression > | total_power | gmean | ufc_patched_v4_60hz | 131.4 | -3.26% | <-- new power saving > +--------------+--------+------------------------------+-------+-----------+ > > All in all this comes out better on every metric than the previous > baseline and way better than current mainline. At least from an Android > perspective as far as the impacts go I'd say it's probably fine to go > ahead and apply this. Thanks for your tests results > > Feel free to add this if you'd like: > Tested-by: Kajetan Puchalski > > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > >