Re: [PATCH] sched/uclamp: Let each sched_class handle uclamp

[Dietmar Eggemann]

On 10/03/2025 12:03, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> Hi Dietmar,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 6:53 PM Dietmar Eggemann
> <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/03/2025 03:41, Xuewen Yan wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 2:32 AM Dietmar Eggemann
>>> <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/03/2025 13:01, Xuewen Yan wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 2:24 AM Dietmar Eggemann
>>>>> <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27/02/2025 14:54, Hongyan Xia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>>> index 857808da23d8..7e5a653811ad 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>>>>>>> @@ -6941,8 +6941,10 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
>>>>>>>        * Let's add the task's estimated utilization to the cfs_rq's
>>>>>>>        * estimated utilization, before we update schedutil.
>>>>>>>        */
>>>>>>> -     if (!(p->se.sched_delayed && (task_on_rq_migrating(p) || (flags & ENQUEUE_RESTORE))))
>>>>>>> +     if (!(p->se.sched_delayed && (task_on_rq_migrating(p) || (flags & ENQUEUE_RESTORE)))) {
>>>>>>> +             uclamp_rq_inc(rq, p);
>>>>>>>               util_est_enqueue(&rq->cfs, p);
>>>>>>> +     }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you want to have p uclamp-enqueued so that its uclamp_min value
>>>>>> counts for the cpufreq_update_util()/cfs_rq_util_change() calls later in
>>>>>> enqueue_task_fair?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   if (p->in_iowait)
>>>>>>     cpufreq_update_util(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   enqueue_entity() -> update_load_avg() -> cfs_rq_util_change() ->
>>>>>>   cpufreq_update_util()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you do this before requeue_delayed_entity() (1) you will not
>>>>>> uclamp-enqueue p which got his ->sched_delayed just cleared in (1)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Could we change to the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> when enqueue:
>>>>>
>>>>> -     if (!(p->se.sched_delayed && (task_on_rq_migrating(p) || (flags
>>>>> & ENQUEUE_RESTORE))))
>>>>> +     if (!(p->se.sched_delayed && !(flags & ENQUEUE_DELAYED)))
>>>>
>>>> Why you want to check ENQUEUE_DELAYED as well here? Isn't
>>>> !p->se.sched_delayed implying !ENQUEUE_DELAYED).
>>>
>>> Indeed, the (!(p->se.sched_delayed && !(flags & ENQUEUE_DELAYED))) is equal to
>>> the  (!(p->se.sched_delayed && (task_on_rq_migrating(p) || (flags &
>>> ENQUEUE_RESTORE)))).
>>> I just think it might be easier to read using the ENQUEUE_DELAYED flag.
>>> Because we only allow enq the uclamp and util_est when wake up the delayed-task.
>>
>> OK, I see.
>>
>> So that means we would not have to move the uclamp handling into the sched
>> classes necessarily, we could use flags in enqueue_task() as well:
>>
>> -->8--
>>
>> Subject: [PATCH] Align uclamp and util_est and call before freq update
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/core.c | 14 ++++++++------
>>  kernel/sched/fair.c |  4 ++--
>>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index b60916d77482..f833108a3b2d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -1747,7 +1747,8 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_dec_id(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
>>         }
>>  }
>>
>> -static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>> +static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
>> +                                int flags)
>>  {
>>         enum uclamp_id clamp_id;
>>
>> @@ -1763,7 +1764,7 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>>         if (unlikely(!p->sched_class->uclamp_enabled))
>>                 return;
>>
>> -       if (p->se.sched_delayed)
>> +       if (p->se.sched_delayed && !(flags & ENQUEUE_DELAYED))
>>                 return;
>>
>>         for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id)
>> @@ -2067,12 +2068,13 @@ void enqueue_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
>>         if (!(flags & ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK))
>>                 update_rq_clock(rq);
>>
>> -       p->sched_class->enqueue_task(rq, p, flags);
>>         /*
>> -        * Must be after ->enqueue_task() because ENQUEUE_DELAYED can clear
>> -        * ->sched_delayed.
>> +        * Can be before ->enqueue_task() because uclamp considers the
>> +        * ENQUEUE_DELAYED task before its ->sched_delayed gets cleared
>> +        * in ->enqueue_task().
>>          */
>> -       uclamp_rq_inc(rq, p);
>> +       uclamp_rq_inc(rq, p, flags);
>> +       p->sched_class->enqueue_task(rq, p, flags);
>>
>>         psi_enqueue(p, flags);
>>
> 
> I submitted a patch similar to yours before:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAB8ipk_AvaOWp9QhmnFDdbFSWcKLhCH151=no6kRO2z+pSJfyQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> And Hongyan fears that as more complexity goes into each sched_class
> like delayed dequeue,
> so it's better to just let the sched_class handle how uclamp is
> enqueued and dequeued within itself rather than leaking into core.c.

Ah, OK. Your patch didn't have 'sched' in the subject so I didn't see it
immediately.

I would prefer that uclamp stays in core.c. ENQUEUE_DELAYED among all
the other flags is already used there (ttwu_runnable()).

task_struct contains  sched_{,rt_,dl_}entity}. We just have to be
careful when switching policies.