Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 3 Dec 2022 14:33:23 +0000
From:   Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>, Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>,
        Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com>,
        Hank <han.lin@mediatek.com>,
        Jonathan JMChen <Jonathan.JMChen@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Traverse cpufreq policies to detect
 capacity inversion
Message-ID: <20221203143323.w32boxa6asqvvdnp@airbuntu>
References: <20221127141742.1644023-1-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <20221127141742.1644023-4-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <CAKfTPtCawKvhMwJYVUskYcX7eR2K7SziWVzvjGh6JCVB+WT5tQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtCawKvhMwJYVUskYcX7eR2K7SziWVzvjGh6JCVB+WT5tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 12/02/22 15:57, Vincent Guittot wrote:

> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 7c0dd57e562a..4bbbca85134b 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -8856,23 +8856,20 @@ static void update_cpu_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu)
> >          *   * Thermal pressure will impact all cpus in this perf domain
> >          *     equally.
> >          */
> > -       if (sched_energy_enabled()) {
> > +       if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_asym_cpucapacity)) {
> >                 unsigned long inv_cap = capacity_orig - thermal_load_avg(rq);
> > -               struct perf_domain *pd = rcu_dereference(rq->rd->pd);
> > +               struct cpufreq_policy *policy, __maybe_unused *policy_n;
> >
> >                 rq->cpu_capacity_inverted = 0;
> >
> > -               SCHED_WARN_ON(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> > -
> > -               for (; pd; pd = pd->next) {
> > -                       struct cpumask *pd_span = perf_domain_span(pd);
> > +               for_each_active_policy_safe(policy, policy_n) {
> 
> So you are looping all cpufreq policy (and before the perf domain) in
> the period load balance. That' really not something we should or want
> to do

Why is it not acceptable in the period load balance but acceptable in the hot
wake up path in feec()? What's the difference?


Thanks!

--
Qais Yousef