On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 03:25:04PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
<snip>
> + 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. */
> + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, freq_domain_span(sfd),
> sched_domain_span(sd)) {
> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &p->cpus_allowed))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (cpu == prev_cpu)
> + continue;
> +
> + /* Skip CPUs that will be overutilized */
> + util = cpu_util_wake(cpu, p) + task_util;
> + cpu_cap = capacity_of(cpu);
> + if (cpu_cap * 1024 < util * capacity_margin)
> + continue;
> +
> + spare_cap = cpu_cap - util;
> + if (spare_cap > max_spare_cap) {
> + max_spare_cap = spare_cap;
> + max_spare_cap_cpu = cpu;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Evaluate the energy impact of using this CPU. */
> + if (max_spare_cap_cpu >= 0) {
> + cur_energy = compute_energy(p, max_spare_cap_cpu);
> + if (cur_energy < best_energy) {
> + best_energy = cur_energy;
> + best_energy_cpu = max_spare_cap_cpu;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * We pick the best CPU only if it saves at least 1.5% of the
> + * energy used by prev_cpu.
> + */
> + if ((prev_energy - best_energy) > (prev_energy >> 6))
> + return best_energy_cpu;
> +
> + return prev_cpu;
> +}
We are comparing the best_energy_cpu against prev_cpu even when prev_cpu
can't accommodate the waking task. Is this intentional? Should not we
discard the prev_cpu if it can't accommodate the task.
This can potentially make a BIG task run on a lower capacity CPU until
load balancer kicks in and corrects the situation.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
Foundation Collaborative Project.
