Hi,
On 21/05/18 15:25, Quentin Perret wrote:
[...]
> +static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
> +{
> + unsigned long cur_energy, prev_energy, best_energy, cpu_cap, task_util;
> + int cpu, best_energy_cpu = prev_cpu;
> + struct sched_energy_fd *sfd;
> + struct sched_domain *sd;
> +
> + sync_entity_load_avg(&p->se);
> +
> + task_util = task_util_est(p);
> + if (!task_util)
> + return prev_cpu;
> +
> + /*
> + * Energy-aware wake-up happens on the lowest sched_domain starting
> + * from sd_ea spanning over this_cpu and prev_cpu.
> + */
> + sd = rcu_dereference(*this_cpu_ptr(&sd_ea));
> + while (sd && !cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sched_domain_span(sd)))
> + sd = sd->parent;
> + if (!sd)
> + return -1;
Shouldn't this be return prev_cpu?
> +
> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, &p->cpus_allowed))
> + prev_energy = best_energy = compute_energy(p, prev_cpu);
> + else
> + prev_energy = best_energy = ULONG_MAX;
> +
> + for_each_freq_domain(sfd) {
> + unsigned long spare_cap, max_spare_cap = 0;
> + int max_spare_cap_cpu = -1;
> + unsigned long util;
> +
> + /* Find the CPU with the max spare cap in the freq. dom. */
I undestand this being a heuristic to cut some overhead, but shouldn't
the model tell between packing vs. spreading?
Thanks,
-Juri
