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;
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 4/6] sched/fair: Tune task wake-up logic to pack small
 background tasks on fewer cores
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@qperret.net>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
References: <20191007083051.4820-1-parth@linux.ibm.com>
 <20191007083051.4820-5-parth@linux.ibm.com>
 <CAKfTPtCgoTJXxbYyza1W55ayw9QeM7fue2e91Xpt804sL9GQWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <80bb34ec-6358-f4dc-d20d-cde6c9d7e197@linux.ibm.com>
 <d55c593d-af8e-c8ba-cc0e-c9917df5d593@arm.com>
 <86dc25e4-9f19-627f-9581-d74608b7f20c@linux.ibm.com>
 <eef32b9e-1f24-e8a9-cd91-dcc6546a636f@arm.com>
From:   Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Oct 2019 22:32:35 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <eef32b9e-1f24-e8a9-cd91-dcc6546a636f@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <0ee8052e-e7fb-83cb-bf70-3c4855ccca8e@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 10/9/19 7:56 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 09/10/2019 10:57, Parth Shah wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> On 07/10/2019 18:53, Parth Shah wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/7/19 5:49 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 10:31, Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> Maybe I can add just below the sched_energy_present(){...} construct giving
>>>> precedence to EAS? I'm asking this because I remember Patrick telling me to
>>>> leverage task packing for android as well?
>>>
>>> I have a hard time imaging that Turbosched will be used in Android next
>>> to EAS in the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> First of all, EAS provides task packing already on Performance Domain
>>> (PD) level (a.k.a. as cluster on traditional 2-cluster Arm/Arm64
>>> big.LITTLE or DynamIQ (with Phantom domains (out of tree solution)).
>>> This is where we can safe energy without harming latency.
>>>
>>> See the tests results under '2.1 Energy test case' in
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-1-quentin.perret@arm.com
>>>
>>> There are 10 to 50 small (classified solely by task utilization) tasks
>>> per test case and EAS shows an effect on energy consumption by packing
>>> them onto the PD (cluster) of the small CPUs.
>>>
>>> And second, the CPU supported topology is different to the one you're
>>> testing on.
>>>
>>
>> cool. I was just keeping in mind the following quote
>> " defining a generic spread-vs-pack wakeup policy which is something
>> Android also could benefit from " (https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/28/628)
> 
> The main thing is that in case we want to introduce a new functionality
> into CFS, we should try hard to use existing infrastructure (or
> infrastructure there is agreement on that we'll need it) as much as
> possible.
> 
> If I understand Patrick here correctly, he suggested not to use uclamp
> but the task latency nice approach. There is agreement that we would
> need something like this as infrastructure:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190830174944.21741-1-subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com
> 

got it.

> So p->latency_nice is suitable to include your p->flags |=
> PF_CAN_BE_PACKED concept nicely.

yeah, I'm working on that part too as a bigger goal.

> 
>>
>> BTW, IIUC that does task consolidation only on single CPU unless
>> rd->overload is set, right?
> 
> Task consolidation on Performance Domains (PDs) w/ multiple CPUs (e.g.
> on a per-cluster PD big.LITTLE system) only works when the system is not
> overutilized:
> 
> 6326 int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> 6327 {
> ...
> 6337         if (!pd || *READ_ONCE(rd->overutilized)*)
> 6338                 goto fail;
> ...

ok. so does that mean TurboSched can still do some good in such systems as
well ?
I mean save energy even when rd->overutilized==1 by not waking user
classified bg tasks on idle core.

> 
> [...]
> 

Thanks,
Parth