Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] sched/fair: Use actual_cpu_capacity everywhere in util_fits_cpu()

[Xuewen Yan]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 7:56 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 07/03/24 16:54, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 at 13:54, Qais Yousef <qyousef@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 07/02/24 15:25, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >        *
> > > > > >        * Only exception is for HW or cpufreq pressure since it has a direct impact
> > > > > >        * on available OPP of the system.
> > > > > > @@ -5011,7 +5011,7 @@ static inline int util_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
> > > > > >        * For uclamp_max, we can tolerate a drop in performance level as the
> > > > > >        * goal is to cap the task. So it's okay if it's getting less.
> > > > > >        */
> > > > > > -     capacity_orig = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu);
> > > > > > +     capacity_actual = get_actual_cpu_capacity(cpu);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       /*
> > > > > >        * We want to force a task to fit a cpu as implied by uclamp_max.
> > > > > > @@ -5039,7 +5039,7 @@ static inline int util_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
> > > > > >        *     uclamp_max request.
> > > > > >        *
> > > > > >        *   which is what we're enforcing here. A task always fits if
> > > > > > -      *   uclamp_max <= capacity_orig. But when uclamp_max > capacity_orig,
> > > > > > +      *   uclamp_max <= capacity_actual. But when uclamp_max > capacity_actual,
> > > > > >        *   the normal upmigration rules should withhold still.
> > > > > >        *
> > > > > >        *   Only exception is when we are on max capacity, then we need to be
> > > > > > @@ -5050,8 +5050,8 @@ static inline int util_fits_cpu(unsigned long util,
> > > > > >        *     2. The system is being saturated when we're operating near
> > > > > >        *        max capacity, it doesn't make sense to block overutilized.
> > > > > >        */
> > > > > > -     uclamp_max_fits = (capacity_orig == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) && (uclamp_max == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
> > > > > > -     uclamp_max_fits = !uclamp_max_fits && (uclamp_max <= capacity_orig);
> > > > > > +     uclamp_max_fits = (capacity_actual == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) && (uclamp_max == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
> > > > >
> > > > > We should use capacity_orig here. We are checking if the CPU is the max
> > > > > capacity CPU.
> > > >
> > > > I was also wondering what would be the best choice there. If we
> > > > consider that we have only one performance domain with all max
> > > > capacity cpus then I agree that we should keep capacity_orig as we
> > > > can't find a better cpu that would fit. But is it always true that all
> > > > max cpu are tied to the same perf domain ?
> > >
> > > Hmm I could be not thinking straight today. But the purpose of this check is to
> > > ensure overutilized can trigger for the common case where a task will always
> > > fit the max capacity cpu (whether it's on a single pd or multiple ones). For
> > > that corner case fits_capacity() should be the only fitness check otherwise
> > > overutilized will never trigger by default.
> >
> > Ok, so I messed up several use cases but in fact both are similar ...
> >
> > if capacity_actual != SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE and uclamp_max ==
> > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE
> > then uclamp_max_fits = (capacity_actual == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) &&
> > (uclamp_max == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) is false
> > and uclamp_max_fits = !uclamp_max_fits && (uclamp_max <=
> > capacity_actual); is also false because (uclamp_max <=
> > capacity_actual) is always false
> >
> > if capacity_actual == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE and uclamp_max ==
> > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE
> > then we are the same as with capacity_orig
>
> Right. The condition is becoming less readable, but you're right it doesn't
> change functionality.
>
> Xuewen, could you put something in the commit message please to remind us in
> the future that we thought about this and it is fine?

Sorry for the late reply. I will read all the emails carefully.
I am also studying the definition and usage of this function carefully.
I will send patch v3 as soon as I fully understand it.

Thanks!

>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Qais Yousef