Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] sched/fair: Rewrite util_fits_cpu()

[Dietmar Eggemann]

On 04/10/2023 11:04, Hongyan Xia wrote:
> From: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Currently, there's no way to distinguish the difference between 1) a CPU
> that is actually maxed out at its highest frequency, or 2) one that is
> throttled because of UCLAMP_MAX, since both present util_avg values of
> 1024. This is problematic because when we try to pick a CPU for a task
> to run, we would like to give 2) a chance, or at least prefer 2) to 1).
> 
> Current upstream gives neither a chance because the spare capacity is 0
> for either case. There are patches to fix this problem by considering 0
> capacities [1], but this might still be inefficient because this ends
> up treating 1) and 2) equally, and will always pick the same one because
> we don't change how we iterate through all CPUs. If we end up putting
> many tasks on 1), then this creates a seriously unbalanced load for the
> two CPUs.
> 
> Fix by using util_avg_uclamp for util_fits_cpu(). This way, case 1) will
> still keep its utilization at 1024 whereas 2) shows spare capacities if
> the sum of util_avg_uclamp values is still under the CPU capacity.
> Note that this is roughly what the sum aggregation does in the Android
> kernel [2] (although we clamp UCLAMP_MIN as well in this patch, which
> may need some discussions), which shows superior energy savings because
> there's more chance that a task can get scheduled on 2) instead of
> finding a big CPU to run on.
> 
> Under sum aggregation, checking whether a task fits a CPU becomes much
> simpler. We simply do fits_capacity() and there does not need to be code
> checking all corner cases for uclamp. This means util_fits_cpu() returns
> to true and false instead of tri-state, simplifying a significant amount
> of code.

You could remove util_fits_cpu() and task_fits_cpu() and call
fits_capacity() directly. We should try to keep the zoo of util-related
functions as small as possible.

[...]