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:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:30:43 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
        qais.yousef@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Consider uclamp for "task fits capacity"
 checks
Message-ID: <20191121133043.GA46904@google.com>
References: <20191120175533.4672-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
 <20191120175533.4672-4-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
 <20191121115602.GA213296@google.com>
 <f7e5dabb-a7e6-d110-abca-de7d4533bcc5@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f7e5dabb-a7e6-d110-abca-de7d4533bcc5@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thursday 21 Nov 2019 at 12:56:39 (+0000), Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > @@ -6274,6 +6274,15 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> >  			if (!fits_capacity(util, cpu_cap))
> >  				continue;
> >  
> > +			/*
> > +			 * Skip CPUs that don't satisfy uclamp requests. Note
> > +			 * that the above already ensures the CPU has enough
> > +			 * spare capacity for the task; this is only really for
> > +			 * uclamp restrictions.
> > +			 */
> > +			if (!task_fits_capacity(p, capacity_orig_of(cpu)))
> > +				continue;
> 
> This is partly redundant with the above, I think. What we really want here
> is just
> 
> fits_capacity(uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MIN), capacity_orig_of(cpu))
> 
> but this would require some inline #ifdeffery.

This suggested change lacks the UCLAMP_MAX part, which is a shame
because this is precisely in the EAS path that we should try and
down-migrate tasks if they have an appropriate max_clamp. So, your first
proposal made sense, IMO.

Another option to avoid the redundancy would be to do something along
the lines of the totally untested diff below.

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 69a81a5709ff..38cb5fe7ba65 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6372,9 +6372,12 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
                        if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
                                continue;
 
-                       /* Skip CPUs that will be overutilized. */
                        util = cpu_util_next(cpu, p, cpu);
                        cpu_cap = capacity_of(cpu);
+                       spare_cap = cpu_cap - util;
+                       util = uclamp_util_with(cpu_rq(cpu), util, p);
+
+                       /* Skip CPUs that will be overutilized. */
                        if (!fits_capacity(util, cpu_cap))
                                continue;
 
@@ -6389,7 +6392,6 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
                         * Find the CPU with the maximum spare capacity in
                         * the performance domain
                         */
-                       spare_cap = cpu_cap - util;
                        if (spare_cap > max_spare_cap) {
                                max_spare_cap = spare_cap;
                                max_spare_cap_cpu = cpu;

Thoughts ?

Thanks,
Quentin