Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-39054-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240105222014.1025040-1-qyousef@layalina.io> <20240105222014.1025040-2-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <CAKfTPtBTbudKM3Lxv0dQ4EXchLW9G8LszArzp6phzhND4O7XSw@mail.gmail.com> <20240124223842.zjsolwhp26w7vowu@airbuntu>
In-Reply-To: <20240124223842.zjsolwhp26w7vowu@airbuntu>
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:50:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtAHQ9vJK_GZdpDC3GzHYWnzLc9USFNW9LSONcWVxybwrA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] sched/fair: Check a task has a fitting cpu when
 updating misfit
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 23:38, Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io> wrote:
>
> On 01/23/24 18:22, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index bcea3d55d95d..0830ceb7ca07 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -5065,17 +5065,61 @@ static inline int task_fits_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> > >
> > >  static inline void update_misfit_status(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
> > >  {
> > > +       unsigned long uclamp_min, uclamp_max;
> > > +       unsigned long util, cpu_cap;
> > > +       int cpu = cpu_of(rq);
> > > +
> > >         if (!sched_asym_cpucap_active())
> > >                 return;
> > >
> > > -       if (!p || p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1) {
> > > -               rq->misfit_task_load = 0;
> > > -               return;
> > > -       }
> > > +       if (!p || p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
> > > +               goto out;
> > >
> > > -       if (task_fits_cpu(p, cpu_of(rq))) {
> > > -               rq->misfit_task_load = 0;
> > > -               return;
> > > +       cpu_cap = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu);
> > > +
> > > +       /* If we can't fit the biggest CPU, that's the best we can ever get. */
> > > +       if (cpu_cap == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> > > +               goto out;
> > > +
> > > +       uclamp_min = uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MIN);
> > > +       uclamp_max = uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MAX);
> > > +       util = task_util_est(p);
> > > +
> > > +       if (util_fits_cpu(util, uclamp_min, uclamp_max, cpu) > 0)
> > > +               goto out;
> > > +
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * If the task affinity is not set to default, make sure it is not
> > > +        * restricted to a subset where no CPU can ever fit it. Triggering
> > > +        * misfit in this case is pointless as it has no where better to move
> > > +        * to. And it can lead to balance_interval to grow too high as we'll
> > > +        * continuously fail to move it anywhere.
> > > +        */
> > > +       if (!cpumask_equal(p->cpus_ptr, cpu_possible_mask)) {
> > > +               unsigned long clamped_util = clamp(util, uclamp_min, uclamp_max);
> > > +               bool has_fitting_cpu = false;
> > > +               struct asym_cap_data *entry;
> > > +
> > > +               rcu_read_lock();
> > > +               list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, &asym_cap_list, link) {
> >
> > Do we really want to potentially do this loop at every pick_next task ?
>
> The common case should return quickly as the biggest CPU should be present
> in every task by default. And after sorting the biggest CPU will be the first
> entry and we should return after one check.
>
> Could we move the update to another less expensive location instead?

TBH, I don't know. I would need time to think about this...
May be when we set the new affinity of the task

>
> We could try to do better tracking for CPUs that has their affinity changed,
> but I am not keen on sprinkling more complexity else where to deal with this.
>
> We could keep the status quouo and just prevent the misfit load balancing from
> increment nr_failed similar to newidle_balance too. I think this should have

One main advantage is that we put the complexity out of the fast path

> a similar effect. Not ideal but if this is considered too expensive still
> I can't think of other options that don't look ugly to me FWIW.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Qais Yousef