Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:26:21 +0000
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
        Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@arm.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] sched/fair: Introduce an energy estimation
 helper function
Message-ID: <20180321122621.GA13951@e110439-lin>
References: <20180320094312.24081-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20180320094312.24081-5-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20180321090430.GA6913@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180321090430.GA6913@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 21-Mar 10:04, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 20/03/18 09:43, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
> > 
> > In preparation for the definition of an energy-aware wakeup path, a
> > helper function is provided to estimate the consequence on system energy
> > when a specific task wakes-up on a specific CPU. compute_energy()
> > estimates the OPPs to be reached by all frequency domains and estimates
> > the consumption of each online CPU according to its energy model and its
> > percentage of busy time.
> > 
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 81 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 6c72a5e7b1b0..76bd46502486 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -6409,6 +6409,30 @@ static inline int cpu_overutilized(int cpu)
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > + * Returns the util of "cpu" if "p" wakes up on "dst_cpu".
> > + */
> > +static unsigned long cpu_util_next(int cpu, struct task_struct *p, int dst_cpu)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long util = cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.avg.util_avg;
> 
> What about other classes? Shouldn't we now also take into account
> DEADLINE (as schedutil does)?

Good point, although that would likely require to factor out from
schedutil the utilization aggregation function, isn't it?

> BTW, we now also have a getter method in sched/sched.h; it takes
> UTIL_EST into account, though. Do we need to take that into account when
> estimating energy consumption?

Actually I think that this whole function can be written "just" as:

---8<---
   unsigned long util = cpu_util_wake(cpu);

   if (cpu != dst_cpu)
        return util;

   return min(util + task_util(p), capacity_orig_of(cpu));
---8<---

which will reuse existing functions as well as getting for free other
stuff (like the CPU util_est).

Considering your observation above, it makes also easy to add into
util the DEADLINE and RT utilizations, just before returning the
value.

> > +	unsigned long capacity = capacity_orig_of(cpu);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If p is where it should be, or if it has no impact on cpu, there is
> > +	 * not much to do.
> > +	 */
> > +	if ((task_cpu(p) == dst_cpu) || (cpu != task_cpu(p) && cpu != dst_cpu))
> > +		goto clamp_util;
> > +
> > +	if (dst_cpu == cpu)
> > +		util += task_util(p);
> > +	else
> > +		util = max_t(long, util - task_util(p), 0);
> > +
> > +clamp_util:
> > +	return (util >= capacity) ? capacity : util;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> >   * Disable WAKE_AFFINE in the case where task @p doesn't fit in the
> >   * capacity of either the waking CPU @cpu or the previous CPU @prev_cpu.
> >   *
> > @@ -6432,6 +6456,63 @@ static int wake_cap(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int prev_cpu)
> >  	return !util_fits_capacity(task_util(p), min_cap);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static struct capacity_state *find_cap_state(int cpu, unsigned long util)
> > +{
> > +	struct sched_energy_model *em = *per_cpu_ptr(energy_model, cpu);
> > +	struct capacity_state *cs = NULL;
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * As the goal is to estimate the OPP reached for a specific util
> > +	 * value, mimic the behaviour of schedutil with a 1.25 coefficient
> > +	 */
> > +	util += util >> 2;
> 
> What about other governors (ondemand for example). Is this supposed to
> work only when schedutil is in use (if so we should probably make it
> conditional on that)?

Yes, I would say that EAS mostly makes sense when you have a "minimum"
control on OPPs... otherwise all the energy estimations are really
fuzzy.

> Also, even when schedutil is in use, shouldn't we ask it for a util
> "computation" instead of replicating its _current_ heuristic?

Are you proposing to have the 1.25 factor only here and remove it from
schedutil?

> I fear  the two might diverge in the future.

That could be avoided by factoring out from schedutil the
"compensation" factor into a proper function to be used by all the
interested playes, isn't it?

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi