Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Take thermal pressure into account while estimating energy

[Lukasz Luba]

Hi Quentin,

On 6/2/21 4:00 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hi Lukasz,
>
> On Wednesday 02 Jun 2021 at 14:56:08 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
> >   compute_energy(struct task_struct *p, int dst_cpu, struct perf_domain *pd)
> >   {
> >   	struct cpumask *pd_mask = perf_domain_span(pd);
> > -	unsigned long cpu_cap = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpumask_first(pd_mask));
> > +	unsigned long _cpu_cap = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpumask_first(pd_mask));
> >   	unsigned long max_util = 0, sum_util = 0;
> > +	unsigned long cpu_cap = _cpu_cap;
> >   	int cpu;
> >   
> >   	/*
> > @@ -6558,6 +6559,14 @@ compute_energy(struct task_struct *p, int dst_cpu, struct perf_domain *pd)
> >   				cpu_util_next(cpu, p, -1) + task_util_est(p);
> >   		}
> >   
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Take the thermal pressure from non-idle CPUs. They have
> > +		 * most up-to-date information. For idle CPUs thermal pressure
> > +		 * signal is not updated so often.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (!idle_cpu(cpu))
> > +			cpu_cap = _cpu_cap - thermal_load_avg(cpu_rq(cpu));
>
> This messes up the irq time scaling no? Maybe move the capping in this

You are talking about scale_irq_capacity() which shrinks the util by
some percentage of irq time. It might be different, by some fraction
(e.g. 8/9 vs 9/10) compared to SchedUtil view, which passes 'raw' arch
capacity. It then adds the irq part, but still to this slightly
different base util.

> function instead of relying on effective_cpu_util() to do it for you?

Agree, since it would be more 'aligned' with how SchedUtil calls
effective_cpu_util(). I will clamp the returned value.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Regards,
Lukasz