[tip: sched/core] sched/fair: Make EAS wakeup placement consider uclamp restrictions

[tip-bot2 for Valentin Schneider]

The following commit has been merged into the sched/core branch of tip:

Commit-ID:     1d42509e475cdc8542aa5b3e03a7e845244f4f57
Gitweb:        https://git.kernel.org/tip/1d42509e475cdc8542aa5b3e03a7e845244f4f57
Author:        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx>
AuthorDate:    Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:38:51 
Committer:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
CommitterDate: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 10:42:09 +01:00

sched/fair: Make EAS wakeup placement consider uclamp restrictions

task_fits_capacity() has just been made uclamp-aware, and
find_energy_efficient_cpu() needs to go through the same treatment.

Things are somewhat different here however - using the task max clamp isn't
sufficient. Consider the following setup:

  The target runqueue, rq:
    rq.cpu_capacity_orig = 512
    rq.cfs.avg.util_avg = 200
    rq.uclamp.max = 768 // the max p.uclamp.max of all enqueued p's is 768

  The waking task, p (not yet enqueued on rq):
    p.util_est = 600
    p.uclamp.max = 100

Now, consider the following code which doesn't use the rq clamps:

  util = uclamp_task_util(p);
  // Does the task fit in the spare CPU capacity?
  cpu = cpu_of(rq);
  fits_capacity(util, cpu_capacity(cpu) - cpu_util(cpu))

This would lead to:

  util = 100;
  fits_capacity(100, 512 - 200)

fits_capacity() would return true. However, enqueuing p on that CPU *will*
cause it to become overutilized since rq clamp values are max-aggregated,
so we'd remain with

  rq.uclamp.max = 768

which comes from the other tasks already enqueued on rq. Thus, we could
select a high enough frequency to reach beyond 0.8 * 512 utilization
(== overutilized) after enqueuing p on rq. What find_energy_efficient_cpu()
needs here is uclamp_rq_util_with() which lets us peek at the future
utilization landscape, including rq-wide uclamp values.

Make find_energy_efficient_cpu() use uclamp_rq_util_with() for its
fits_capacity() check. This is in line with what compute_energy() ends up
using for estimating utilization.

Tested-By: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191211113851.24241-6-valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 12 ++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 26c59bc..2d170b5 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6273,9 +6273,18 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
 			if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, p->cpus_ptr))
 				continue;
 
-			/* Skip CPUs that will be overutilized. */
 			util = cpu_util_next(cpu, p, cpu);
 			cpu_cap = capacity_of(cpu);
+			spare_cap = cpu_cap - util;
+
+			/*
+			 * Skip CPUs that cannot satisfy the capacity request.
+			 * IOW, placing the task there would make the CPU
+			 * overutilized. Take uclamp into account to see how
+			 * much capacity we can get out of the CPU; this is
+			 * aligned with schedutil_cpu_util().
+			 */
+			util = uclamp_rq_util_with(cpu_rq(cpu), util, p);
 			if (!fits_capacity(util, cpu_cap))
 				continue;
 
@@ -6290,7 +6299,6 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
 			 * Find the CPU with the maximum spare capacity in
 			 * the performance domain
 			 */
-			spare_cap = cpu_cap - util;
 			if (spare_cap > max_spare_cap) {
 				max_spare_cap = spare_cap;
 				max_spare_cap_cpu = cpu;