sched/fair: Fix task utilization accountability in compute_energy()
find_energy_efficient_cpu() (feec()) computes for each perf_domain (pd) an energy delta as follows: feec(task) for_each_pd base_energy = compute_energy(task, -1, pd) -> for_each_cpu(pd) -> cpu_util_next(cpu, task, -1) energy_delta = compute_energy(task, dst_cpu, pd) -> for_each_cpu(pd) -> cpu_util_next(cpu, task, dst_cpu) energy_delta -= base_energy Then it picks the best CPU as being the one that minimizes energy_delta. cpu_util_next() estimates the CPU utilization that would happen if the task was placed on dst_cpu as follows: max(cpu_util + task_util, cpu_util_est + _task_util_est) The task contribution to the energy delta can then be either: (1) _task_util_est, on a mostly idle CPU, where cpu_util is close to 0 and _task_util_est > cpu_util. (2) task_util, on a mostly busy CPU, where cpu_util > _task_util_est. (cpu_util_est doesn't appear here. It is 0 when a CPU is idle and otherwise must be small enough so that feec() takes the CPU as a potential target for the task placement) This is problematic for feec(), as cpu_util_next() might give an unfair advantage to a CPU which is mostly busy (2) compared to one which is mostly idle (1). _task_util_est being always bigger than task_util in feec() (as the task is waking up), the task contribution to the energy might look smaller on certain CPUs (2) and this breaks the energy comparison. This issue is, moreover, not sporadic. By starving idle CPUs, it keeps their cpu_util < _task_util_est (1) while others will maintain cpu_util > _task_util_est (2). Fix this problem by always using max(task_util, _task_util_est) as a task contribution to the energy (ENERGY_UTIL). The new estimated CPU utilization for the energy would then be: max(cpu_util, cpu_util_est) + max(task_util, _task_util_est) compute_energy() still needs to know which OPP would be selected if the task would be migrated in the perf_domain (FREQUENCY_UTIL). Hence, cpu_util_next() is still used to estimate the maximum util within the pd. Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210225083612.1113823-2-vincent.donnefort@arm.com
Please register or sign in to comment