Re: [PATCH v6 11/16] sched/fair: Add uclamp support to energy_compute()

[Patrick Bellasi]

On 22-Jan 13:29, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 Jan 2019 at 12:45:46 (+0000), Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 22-Jan 12:13, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 15 Jan 2019 at 10:15:08 (+0000), Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > > The Energy Aware Scheduler (AES) estimates the energy impact of waking
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > > +		for_each_cpu_and(cpu, pd_mask, cpu_online_mask) {
> > > > +			cfs_util = cpu_util_next(cpu, p, dst_cpu);
> > > > +
> > > > +			/*
> > > > +			 * Busy time computation: utilization clamping is not
> > > > +			 * required since the ratio (sum_util / cpu_capacity)
> > > > +			 * is already enough to scale the EM reported power
> > > > +			 * consumption at the (eventually clamped) cpu_capacity.
> > > > +			 */
> > > 
> > > Right.
> > > 
> > > > +			sum_util += schedutil_cpu_util(cpu, cfs_util, cpu_cap,
> > > > +						       ENERGY_UTIL, NULL);
> > > > +
> > > > +			/*
> > > > +			 * Performance domain frequency: utilization clamping
> > > > +			 * must be considered since it affects the selection
> > > > +			 * of the performance domain frequency.
> > > > +			 */
> > > 
> > > So that actually affects the way we deal with RT I think. I assume the
> > > idea is to say if you don't want to reflect the RT-go-to-max-freq thing
> > > in EAS (which is what we do now) you should set the min cap for RT to 0.
> > > Is that correct ?
> > 
> > By default configuration, RT tasks still go to max when uclamp is
> > enabled, since they get a util_min=1024.
> > 
> > If we want to save power on RT tasks, we can set a smaller util_min...
> > but not necessarily 0. A util_min=0 for RT tasks means to use just
> > cpu_util_rt() for that class.
> 
> Ah, sorry, I guess my message was misleading. I'm saying this is
> changing the way _EAS_ deals with RT tasks. Right now we don't actually
> consider the RT-go-to-max thing at all in the EAS prediction. Your
> patch is changing that AFAICT. It actually changes the way EAS sees RT
> tasks even without uclamp ...

Lemme see if I get it right.

Currently, whenever we look at CPU utilization for ENERGY_UTIL, we
always use cpu_util_rt() for RT tasks:

---8<---
        util = util_cfs;
        util += cpu_util_rt(rq);
        util += dl_util;
---8<---

Thus, even when RT tasks are RUNNABLE, we don't always assume the CPU
running at the max capacity but just whatever is the aggregated
utilization across all the classes.

With uclamp, we have:

---8<---
        util = cpu_util_rt(rq) + util_cfs;
        if (type == FREQUENCY_UTIL)
            util = uclamp_util_with(rq, util, p);
        dl_util = cpu_util_dl(rq);
        if (type == ENERGY_UTIL)
            util += dl_util;
---8<---

So, I would say that, in terms of ENERGY_UTIL we do the same both
w/ and w/o uclamp. Isn't it?


> But I'm not hostile to the idea since it's possible to enable uclamp and
> set the min cap to 0 for RT if you want. So there is a story there.
> However, I think this needs be documented somewhere, at the very least.

The only difference I see is that the actual frequency could be
different (lower then max) when a clamped RT task is RUNNABLE.

Are you worried that running RT on a lower freq could have side
effects on the estimated busy time the CPU ?

I also still don't completely get why you say it could be useful to
   "set the min cap to 0 for RT if you want"

IMO this will be an even bigger difference wrt mainline, since the RT
tasks will never have a granted minimum freq but just whatever
utilization we measure for them.

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi