Re: [PATCH 0/6 v7] sched/fair: Add push task mecansim and hadle more EAS cases

[Christian Loehle]

Nit in the title: mechanism, handle

On 12/1/25 13:31, Christian Loehle wrote:
> On 12/1/25 09:13, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> This is a subset of [1] (sched/fair: Rework EAS to handle more cases)
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250314163614.1356125-1-vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> The current Energy Aware Scheduler has some known limitations which have
>> became more and more visible with features like uclamp as an example. This
>> serie tries to fix some of those issues:
>> - tasks stacked on the same CPU of a PD
>> - tasks stuck on the wrong CPU.
>>
>> Patch 1 fixes the case where a CPU is wrongly classified as overloaded
>> whereas it is capped to a lower compute capacity. This wrong classification
>> can prevent periodic load balancer to select a group_misfit_task CPU
>> because group_overloaded has higher priority.
>>
>> Patch 2 removes the need of testing uclamp_min in cpu_overutilized to
>> trigger the active migration of a task on another CPU.
>>
>> Patch 3 prepares select_task_rq_fair() to be called without TTWU, Fork or
>> Exec flags when we just want to look for a possible better CPU.
>>
>> Patch 4 adds push call back mecanism to fair scheduler but doesn't enable
>> it.
>>
>> Patch 5 enable has_idle_core for !SMP system to track if there may be an
>> idle CPU in the LLC.
>>
>> Patch 6 adds some conditions to enable pushing runnable tasks for EAS:
>> - when a task is stuck on a CPU and the system is not overutilized.
>> - if there is a possible idle CPU when the system is overutilized.
>>
>> More tests results will come later as I wanted to send the pachtset before
>> LPC.
>>
>> Tbench  on dragonboard rb5
>> schedutil and EAS enabled
>>
>> # process     tip                   +patchset
>> 1              29.1(+/-4.1%)        124.7(+/-12.3%) +329%
>> 2              60.0(+/-0.9%)        216.1(+/- 7.9%) +260%
>> 4             255.8(+/-1.9%)        421.4(+/- 2.0%)  +65%       
>> 8            1317.3(+/-4.6%)       1396.1(+/- 3.0%)   +6%
>> 16            958.2(+/-4.6%)        979.6(+/- 2.0%)   +2%
> 
> Just so I understand, there's no uclamp in the workload here?
> Could you expand on the workload a little, what were the parameters/settings?
> So the significant increase is really only for nr_proc < nr_cpus, with the
> observed throughput increase it'll probably be something like "always running
> on little CPUs" vs "always running on big CPUs", is that what's happening?
> Also shouldn't tbench still have plenty of wakeup events? It issues plenty of
> TCP anyway.

... or if not why does OU not trigger on tip?

> 
>>
>> Hackbench didn't show any difference
>>
>>
>> Vincent Guittot (6):
>>   sched/fair: Filter false overloaded_group case for EAS
>>   sched/fair: Update overutilized detection
>>   sched/fair: Prepare select_task_rq_fair() to be called for new cases
>>   sched/fair: Add push task mechanism for fair
>>   sched/fair: Enable idle core tracking for !SMT
>>   sched/fair: Add EAS and idle cpu push trigger
>>
>>  kernel/sched/fair.c     | 350 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  kernel/sched/sched.h    |  46 ++++--
>>  kernel/sched/topology.c |   3 +
>>  3 files changed, 346 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
>>

I can't apply this on yesterday's released 6.18 and not on tip/sched-core, what's
this based on? Can I get a branch or a 6.18 rebase?