Re: [PATCH v5 04/12] sched: Allow all archs to set the capacity_orig

From: Vincent Guittot
Date: Mon Sep 01 2014 - 04:05:39 EST


On 30 August 2014 19:07, Preeti U Murthy <preeti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 08/26/2014 04:36 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> capacity_orig is only changed for system with a SMT sched_domain level in order
>
> I think I had asked this before, but why only capacity_orig? The
> capacity of a group is also being updated the same way. This patch fixes
> the capacity of a group to reflect the capacity of the heterogeneous
> CPUs in it, this capacity being both the full capacity of the group:
> capacity_orig and the capacity available for the fair tasks. So I feel
> in the subject as well as the changelog it would suffice to say 'capacity'.

IIRC, we discussed that point on a former version. The patch changes
only the behavior of capacity_orig but the behavior of capacity stays
unchanged as all archs can already set the capacity whereas the
capacity_orig was configurable only if the SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY was
set in the sched_domain. This is no more the case with this patch
which creates arch_scale_cpu_capacity for setting capacity_orig.

>
>> to reflect the lower capacity of CPUs. Heterogenous system also have to reflect an
>> original capacity that is different from the default value.
>>
>> Create a more generic function arch_scale_cpu_capacity that can be also used by
>> non SMT platform to set capacity_orig.
>>
>> The weak behavior of arch_scale_cpu_capacity is the previous SMT one in order to
>> keep backward compatibility in the use of capacity_orig.
>>
>> arch_scale_smt_capacity and default_scale_smt_capacity have been removed as
>> they were not use elsewhere than in arch_scale_cpu_capacity.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 25 ++++++-------------------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index b85e9f7..8176bda 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -5705,19 +5705,12 @@ unsigned long __weak arch_scale_freq_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu)
>> return default_scale_capacity(sd, cpu);
>> }
>>
>> -static unsigned long default_scale_smt_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu)
>> +unsigned long __weak arch_scale_cpu_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu)
>> {
>> - unsigned long weight = sd->span_weight;
>> - unsigned long smt_gain = sd->smt_gain;
>> + if ((sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY) && (sd->span_weight > 1))
>> + return sd->smt_gain / sd->span_weight;
>>
>> - smt_gain /= weight;
>> -
>> - return smt_gain;
>> -}
>> -
>> -unsigned long __weak arch_scale_smt_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu)
>> -{
>> - return default_scale_smt_capacity(sd, cpu);
>> + return SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
>> }
>>
>> static unsigned long scale_rt_capacity(int cpu)
>> @@ -5756,18 +5749,12 @@ static unsigned long scale_rt_capacity(int cpu)
>>
>> static void update_cpu_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu)
>> {
>> - unsigned long weight = sd->span_weight;
>> unsigned long capacity = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
>> struct sched_group *sdg = sd->groups;
>>
>> - if ((sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY) && weight > 1) {
>> - if (sched_feat(ARCH_CAPACITY))
>
> Aren't you missing this check above? I understand that it is not
> crucial, but that would also mean removing ARCH_CAPACITY sched_feat
> altogether, wouldn't it?

Peter has proposed to remove all those checks and to keep only the
default behavior because no arch uses arch_scale_smt_capacity.
Then, ARCH_CAPACITY is still used in update_cpu_capacity

Regards,
Vincent
>
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
>> - capacity *= arch_scale_smt_capacity(sd, cpu);
>> - else
>> - capacity *= default_scale_smt_capacity(sd, cpu);
>> + capacity *= arch_scale_cpu_capacity(sd, cpu);
>>
>> - capacity >>= SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
>> - }
>> + capacity >>= SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
>>
>> sdg->sgc->capacity_orig = capacity;
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/