Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/deadline: Make DL capacity-aware
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Alessio Balsini <balsini@google.com>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200408095012.3819-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20200408095012.3819-4-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20200410125253.GE14300@localhost.localdomain>
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Message-ID: <f0e74500-77d7-a42c-410e-bc5d4d2ecdfb@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 11:39:35 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200410125253.GE14300@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10.04.20 14:52, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 08/04/20 11:50, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>

[...]

>> @@ -1623,10 +1624,19 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int sd_flag, int flags)
>>  	 * other hand, if it has a shorter deadline, we
>>  	 * try to make it stay here, it might be important.
>>  	 */
>> -	if (unlikely(dl_task(curr)) &&
>> -	    (curr->nr_cpus_allowed < 2 ||
>> -	     !dl_entity_preempt(&p->dl, &curr->dl)) &&
>> -	    (p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1)) {
>> +	select_rq = unlikely(dl_task(curr)) &&
>> +		    (curr->nr_cpus_allowed < 2 ||
>> +		     !dl_entity_preempt(&p->dl, &curr->dl)) &&
>> +		    p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * We take into account the capacity of the CPU to
>> +	 * ensure it fits the requirement of the task.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_asym_cpucapacity))
>> +		select_rq |= !dl_task_fits_capacity(p, cpu);
> 
> I'm thinking that, while dl_task_fits_capacity() works well when
> selecting idle cpus, in this case we should consider the fact that curr
> might be deadline as well and already consuming some of the rq capacity.
> 
> Do you think we should try to take that into account, maybe using
> dl_rq->this_bw ?

So you're saying that cpudl_find(..., later_mask) could return 1 (w/
best_cpu (cp->elements[0].cpu) in later_mask).

And that this best_cpu could be a non-fitting CPU for p.

This could happen if cp->free_cpus is empty (no idle CPUs) so we take
cpudl_find()'s else path and in case p's deadline < cp->elements[0]
deadline.

We could condition the 'return 1' on best_cpu fitting p.

But should we do this for cpudl_find(..., NULL) calls from
check_preempt_equal_dl() as well or will this break GEDF?