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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210330052154.26861-1-xuewen.yan94@gmail.com>
 <YGLzQAvVqlrKb8AB@google.com> <34ce11ad-9c20-7ba7-90d8-4830725bf38a@arm.com>
 <CAB8ipk9JATYxJBnpVFfH_XHLqh=yHesbo73wx=Mm7t8mSqW_Gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1ebddd33-4666-1e6e-7788-a3fe28c9e99c@arm.com> <CAB8ipk9+fdGMY6cYoHnicPUOdd+meJo+EaGaaVZTgoxQ84+Wiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d85a1db9-4680-1d31-d3e7-6a081f652c5e@arm.com> <CAB8ipk_J-W35+iZqsmAm+VO2=OUXRR3EsW6BuhYmvmBiPcHxMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d80b7b3e-7eb3-4d0a-99fd-167e14ab86bc@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <d80b7b3e-7eb3-4d0a-99fd-167e14ab86bc@arm.com>
From:   Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:52:52 +0800
Message-ID: <CAB8ipk8RhhBvRq3jUnP2ENfSG_L=LonnVfweymYkQJrZQyA9jQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: use signed long when compute energy delta in eas
To:     Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>,
        Ryan Y <xuewyan@foxmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi
>
> Hi,
> > >
> > > This patch-set is not significantly improving the execution time of
> > > feec(). The results we have so far are an improvement of 5-10% in
> > > execution time, with feec() being executed in < 10us. So the gain is =
not
> > > spectacular.
> >
> > well=EF=BC=8C I meaned to cache all util value and compute energy with =
caches,
> > when
> > (cpu=3D=3Ddst_cpu), use caches instead of updating util, and do not get
> > util with function:
> >  "effective_cpu_util()", to compute util with cache.
> > I add more parameters into pd_cache:
> > struct pd_cache {
> >         unsigned long util;
> >         unsigned long util_est;
> >         unsigned long util_cfs;
> >         unsigned long util_irq;
> >         unsigned long util_rt;
> >         unsigned long util_dl;
> >         unsigned long bw_dl;
> >         unsigned long freq_util;
> >         unsigned long nrg_util;
> > };
> > In this way, it can avoid util update while feec. I tested with it,
> > and the negative delta disappeared.
> > Maybe this is not a good method, but it does work.
> If I understand correctly, you put all the fields used by
> core.c:effective_cpu_util() in the caches, allowing to have values not
> subject to updates.
Yes.
> core.c:effective_cpu_util() isn't only called from
> fair.c:compute_energy(). It is used in the cpufreq_schedutil.c and
> cpufreq_cooling.c (through core.c:sched_cpu_util()).
> Did you have to duplicate core.c:effective_cpu_util() to have a second
> version using the caches ? If yes, I think the function was meant to be
> unique so that all the utilization estimations go through the same path.
>
I defined a new function to distinguish it from the effective_cpu_util.

> If your concern is to avoid negative delta, I think just bailing out
> when this happens should be sufficient. As shown in the last message,
> having a wrong placement should not happen that often, plus the prev_cpu
> should be used which should be ok.
In your patch, you didn't actually choose the prev_cpu. you return (-1);

> If you want to cache the values, I think a stronger justification will
> be asked: this seems to be a big modification compared to the initial
> issue, knowing that another simpler solution is available (i.e. bailing
> out). I was not able to prove there was a significant gain in the
> find_energy_efficient_cpu() execution time, but I would be happy if you
> can, or if you find other arguments.
Yes, you are right, perhaps there is indeed no need for such a big modifica=
tion.

Regards