Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Add a new sysctl to control RT default boost value

[Qais Yousef]

On 04/21/20 13:18, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 20/04/2020 17:13, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 04/20/20 10:29, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >> On 03.04.20 14:30, Qais Yousef wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> @@ -924,6 +945,14 @@ uclamp_eff_get(struct task_struct *p, enum uclamp_id clamp_id)
> >>>  	return uc_req;
> >>>  }
> >>>  
> >>> +static void uclamp_rt_sync_default_util_min(struct task_struct *p)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct uclamp_se *uc_se = &p->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MIN];
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (!uc_se->user_defined)
> >>> +		uclamp_se_set(uc_se, sysctl_sched_rt_default_uclamp_util_min, false);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>>  unsigned long uclamp_eff_value(struct task_struct *p, enum uclamp_id clamp_id)
> >>>  {
> >>>  	struct uclamp_se uc_eff;
> >>> @@ -1030,6 +1059,12 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> >>>  	if (unlikely(!p->sched_class->uclamp_enabled))
> >>>  		return;
> >>>  
> >>> +	/*
> >>> +	 * When sysctl_sched_rt_default_uclamp_util_min value is changed by the
> >>> +	 * user, we apply any new value on the next wakeup, which is here.
> >>> +	 */
> >>> +	uclamp_rt_sync_default_util_min(p);
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Does this have to be an extra function? Can we not reuse
> >> uclamp_tg_restrict() by slightly rename it to uclamp_restrict()?
> > 
> > Hmm the thing is that we're not restricting here. In contrary we're boosting,
> > so the name would be misleading.
> 
> I always thought that we're restricting p->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MIN].value (default 1024) to
> sysctl_sched_rt_default_uclamp_util_min (0-1024)?

The way I look at it is that we're *setting* it to
sysctl_sched_rt_default_uclamp_util_min if !user_defined.

The restriction mechanism that ensures this set value doesn't escape
cgroup/global restrictions setup.

> 
> root@h960:~# echo 999 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_default_util_clamp_min
> 
> [  118.028582] uclamp_eff_get() [rtkit-daemon 410] tag=0 uclamp_id=0 uc_req.value=1024
> [  118.036290] uclamp_eff_get() [rtkit-daemon 410] tag=1 uclamp_id=0 uc_req.value=1024
> [  125.181747] uclamp_eff_get() [rtkit-daemon 410] tag=0 uclamp_id=0 uc_req.value=1024
> [  125.189443] uclamp_eff_get() [rtkit-daemon 410] tag=1 uclamp_id=0 uc_req.value=1024
> [  131.213211] uclamp_restrict() [rtkit-daemon 410] p->uclamp_req[0].value=999
> [  131.220201] uclamp_eff_get() [rtkit-daemon 410] tag=0 uclamp_id=0 uc_req.value=999
> [  131.227792] uclamp_eff_get() [rtkit-daemon 410] tag=1 uclamp_id=0 uc_req.value=999
> [  137.181544] uclamp_eff_get() [rtkit-daemon 410] tag=0 uclamp_id=0 uc_req.value=999
> [  137.189170] uclamp_eff_get() [rtkit-daemon 410] tag=1 uclamp_id=0 uc_req.value=999
> 
> >> This function will then deal with enforcing restrictions, whether system
> >> and taskgroup hierarchy related or default value (latter only for rt-min
> >> right now since the others are fixed) related.
> >>
> >> uclamp_eff_get() -> uclamp_restrict() is called from:
> >>
> >>   'enqueue_task(), uclamp_update_active() -> uclamp_rq_inc() -> uclamp_rq_inc_id()' and
> >>
> >>   'task_fits_capacity() -> clamp_task_util(), rt_task_fits_capacity() -> uclamp_eff_value()' and
> >>
> >>   'schedutil_cpu_util(), find_energy_efficient_cpu() -> uclamp_rq_util_with() -> uclamp_eff_value()'
> >>
> >> so there would be more check-points than the one in 'enqueue_task() -> uclamp_rq_inc()' now.
> > 
> > I think you're revolving around the same idea that Patrick was suggesting.
> > I think it is possible to do something in uclamp_eff_get() too.
> 
> Yeah, I read https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20200415074600.GA26984@darkstar again.
> 
> Everything which moves enforcing sysctl_sched_rt_default_uclamp_util_min closer to 'uclamp_eff_get() -> 
> uclamp_(tg_)restrict()' is fine with me.

Cool.

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef