From: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
To: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lukasz.Luba@arm.com,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: Remove EM_MAX_COMPLEXITY limit
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 15:21:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yvz5VYjBl4emkA59@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220812101620.627838-1-pierre.gondois@arm.com>
Hi Pierre,
On Friday 12 Aug 2022 at 12:16:19 (+0200), Pierre Gondois wrote:
> From: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
>
> The Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS) estimates the energy consumption
> of placing a task on different CPUs. The goal is to minimize this
> energy consumption. Estimating the energy of different task placements
> is increasingly complex with the size of the platform. To avoid having
> a slow wake-up path, EAS is only enabled if this complexity is low
> enough.
>
> The current complexity limit was set in:
> commit b68a4c0dba3b1 ("sched/topology: Disable EAS on inappropriate
> platforms").
> base on the first implementation of EAS, which was re-computing
> the power of the whole platform for each task placement scenario, cf:
> commit 390031e4c309 ("sched/fair: Introduce an energy estimation helper
> function").
> but the complexity of EAS was reduced in:
> commit eb92692b2544d ("sched/fair: Speed-up energy-aware wake-ups")
> and find_energy_efficient_cpu() (feec) algorithm was updated in:
> commit 3e8c6c9aac42 ("sched/fair: Remove task_util from effective
> utilization in feec()")
>
> find_energy_efficient_cpu() (feec) is now doing:
> feec()
> \_ for_each_pd(pd) [0]
> // get max_spare_cap_cpu and compute_prev_delta
> \_ for_each_cpu(pd) [1]
>
> \_ get_pd_busy_time(pd) [2]
> \_ for_each_cpu(pd)
>
> // evaluate pd energy without the task
> \_ get_pd_max_util(pd, -1) [3.0]
> \_ for_each_cpu(pd)
> \_ compute_energy(pd, -1)
> \_ for_each_ps(pd)
>
> // evaluate pd energy with the task on prev_cpu
> \_ get_pd_max_util(pd, prev_cpu) [3.1]
> \_ for_each_cpu(pd)
> \_ compute_energy(pd, prev_cpu)
> \_ for_each_ps(pd)
>
> // evaluate pd energy with the task on max_spare_cap_cpu
> \_ get_pd_max_util(pd, max_spare_cap_cpu) [3.2]
> \_ for_each_cpu(pd)
> \_ compute_energy(pd, max_spare_cap_cpu)
> \_ for_each_ps(pd)
>
> [3.1] happens only once since prev_cpu is unique. To have an upper
> bound of the complexity, [3.1] is taken into account for all pds.
> So with the same definitions for nr_pd, nr_cpus and nr_ps,
> the complexity is of:
> nr_pd * (2 * [nr_cpus in pd] + 3 * ([nr_cpus in pd] + [nr_ps in pd]))
> [0] * ( [1] + [2] + [3.0] + [3.1] + [3.2] )
> = 5 * nr_cpus + 3 * nr_ps
>
I just want to draw your attention to [1] and the fact that the
structure of the function changed. Your calculations largely remain the
same - 3 calls to compute_energy() which in turn now calls
eenv_pd_max_util() with operations for each cpu, plus some scattered
calls to eenv_pd_busy_time(), all for each pd.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220621090414.433602-7-vdonnefort@google.com/
Thanks,
Ionela.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-17 14:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-12 10:16 [PATCH] sched/topology: Remove EM_MAX_COMPLEXITY limit Pierre Gondois
2022-08-17 14:21 ` Ionela Voinescu [this message]
2022-08-17 15:03 ` Pierre Gondois
2022-08-18 12:19 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-10-26 12:23 ` Lukasz Luba
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Yvz5VYjBl4emkA59@arm.com \
--to=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=Lukasz.Luba@arm.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox