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 13:59:25 +0100
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.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: <20180321125925.GB15165@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20180320094312.24081-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20180320094312.24081-5-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20180321090430.GA6913@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180321122621.GA13951@e110439-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180321122621.GA13951@e110439-lin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 21/03/18 12:26, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> 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?

Maybe, or simply use getter methods and aggregate again here.

> 
> > 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.

Well, for RT we should problably consider the fact that schedutil is
going to select max OPP...

Apart from that I guess it could work like you said.

> 
> > > +	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.

Make sense to me. Shouldn't we then make all this conditional on using
schedutil?

> 
> > 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'm only saying that we shouldn't probably have two places where we add
this 1.25 factor to utilization before using it, as in the future one of
the two might modify that 1.25 to something else and then we'll have
problems. So, maybe a common wrapper that adds such factor?

> 
> > 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?

And I should have read till the end before writing the above paragraph
it seems. :)

Thanks,

- Juri