From: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
To: Qiliang Yuan <realwujing@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Qiliang Yuan <yuanql9@chinatelecom.cn>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RSEND] sched/fair: Optimize EAS energy calculation complexity from O(N) to O(1) inside inner loop
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 10:48:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b7ab2ec5-e28e-4a37-b172-e1e056bcf59b@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260202030512.2792311-1-realwujing@gmail.com>
On 2/2/26 03:05, Qiliang Yuan wrote:
> Pre-calculate the base maximum utilization of each performance domain during the
> main loop of find_energy_efficient_cpu() and cache it in the local
> 'energy_env' structure.
>
> By caching this base value, the maximum utilization for candidate CPU
> placements (such as prev_cpu and max_spare_cap_cpu) can be determined in
> O(1) time, eliminating redundant scans of the performance domain. This
> optimizes the energy estimation path by reducing the number of scans per
> performance domain from three to one.
Which is still O(n), I think the title is misleading.
>
> This change significantly reduces wake-up latency on systems with high core
> counts or complex performance domain topologies by minimizing the overall
> complexity of the Energy-Aware Scheduling (EAS) calculation.
I don't think this is actually true. EAS doesn't really work with a large
number of PDs because of the expensive wakeup path.
I don't think there's an EAS system out there where this would actually make a
measurable impact. Most have 2 or 3, the highest number of PDs I'm aware of
is 5, but FWIW the actual change looks correct to me.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qiliang Yuan <yuanql9@chinatelecom.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Qiliang Yuan <realwujing@gmail.com>
> ---
> v2:
> - Ensure RCU safety by using local 'energy_env' for caching instead of
> modifying the shared 'perf_domain' structure.
> - Consolidate pre-calculation into the main loop to avoid an extra pass
> over the performance domains.
> v1:
> - Optimize energy calculation by pre-calculating performance domain max utilization.
> - Add max_util and max_spare_cap_cpu to struct perf_domain.
> - Reduce inner loop complexity from O(N) to O(1) for energy estimation.
>
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index e71302282671..5c114c49c202 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -8148,6 +8148,7 @@ struct energy_env {
> unsigned long pd_busy_time;
> unsigned long cpu_cap;
> unsigned long pd_cap;
> + unsigned long pd_max_util;
> };
>
> /*
> @@ -8215,41 +8216,32 @@ static inline void eenv_pd_busy_time(struct energy_env *eenv,
> * exceed @eenv->cpu_cap.
> */
> static inline unsigned long
> -eenv_pd_max_util(struct energy_env *eenv, struct cpumask *pd_cpus,
> +eenv_pd_max_util(struct energy_env *eenv, struct perf_domain *pd,
> struct task_struct *p, int dst_cpu)
> {
> - unsigned long max_util = 0;
> - int cpu;
> + unsigned long max_util = eenv->pd_max_util;
>
> - for_each_cpu(cpu, pd_cpus) {
> - struct task_struct *tsk = (cpu == dst_cpu) ? p : NULL;
> - unsigned long util = cpu_util(cpu, p, dst_cpu, 1);
> + if (dst_cpu >= 0 && cpumask_test_cpu(dst_cpu, perf_domain_span(pd))) {
> + unsigned long util = cpu_util(dst_cpu, p, dst_cpu, 1);
> unsigned long eff_util, min, max;
>
> - /*
> - * Performance domain frequency: utilization clamping
> - * must be considered since it affects the selection
> - * of the performance domain frequency.
> - * NOTE: in case RT tasks are running, by default the min
> - * utilization can be max OPP.
> - */
> - eff_util = effective_cpu_util(cpu, util, &min, &max);
> + eff_util = effective_cpu_util(dst_cpu, util, &min, &max);
>
> /* Task's uclamp can modify min and max value */
> - if (tsk && uclamp_is_used()) {
> + if (uclamp_is_used()) {
> min = max(min, uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MIN));
>
> /*
> * If there is no active max uclamp constraint,
> * directly use task's one, otherwise keep max.
> */
> - if (uclamp_rq_is_idle(cpu_rq(cpu)))
> + if (uclamp_rq_is_idle(cpu_rq(dst_cpu)))
> max = uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MAX);
> else
> max = max(max, uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MAX));
> }
>
> - eff_util = sugov_effective_cpu_perf(cpu, eff_util, min, max);
> + eff_util = sugov_effective_cpu_perf(dst_cpu, eff_util, min, max);
> max_util = max(max_util, eff_util);
> }
>
> @@ -8265,7 +8257,7 @@ static inline unsigned long
> compute_energy(struct energy_env *eenv, struct perf_domain *pd,
> struct cpumask *pd_cpus, struct task_struct *p, int dst_cpu)
> {
> - unsigned long max_util = eenv_pd_max_util(eenv, pd_cpus, p, dst_cpu);
> + unsigned long max_util = eenv_pd_max_util(eenv, pd, p, dst_cpu);
> unsigned long busy_time = eenv->pd_busy_time;
> unsigned long energy;
>
> @@ -8376,12 +8368,20 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
>
> eenv.cpu_cap = cpu_actual_cap;
> eenv.pd_cap = 0;
> + eenv.pd_max_util = 0;
>
> for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus) {
> struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> + unsigned long util_b, eff_util_b, min_b, max_b;
>
> eenv.pd_cap += cpu_actual_cap;
>
> + /* Pre-calculate base max utilization for the performance domain */
> + util_b = cpu_util(cpu, p, -1, 1);
> + eff_util_b = effective_cpu_util(cpu, util_b, &min_b, &max_b);
> + eff_util_b = sugov_effective_cpu_perf(cpu, eff_util_b, min_b, max_b);
> + eenv.pd_max_util = max(eenv.pd_max_util, eff_util_b);
> +
> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sched_domain_span(sd)))
> continue;
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-02 10:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-02 3:05 [PATCH v2 RSEND] sched/fair: Optimize EAS energy calculation complexity from O(N) to O(1) inside inner loop Qiliang Yuan
2026-02-02 10:48 ` Christian Loehle [this message]
2026-02-03 17:16 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-02-04 12:11 ` Qiliang Yuan
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=b7ab2ec5-e28e-4a37-b172-e1e056bcf59b@arm.com \
--to=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=realwujing@gmail.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=yuanql9@chinatelecom.cn \
/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