Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix task utilization accountability in cpu_util_next() | From | Dietmar Eggemann <> | Date | Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:47:42 +0100 |
| |
On 22/02/2021 17:23, Quentin Perret wrote: > On Monday 22 Feb 2021 at 15:58:56 (+0000), Quentin Perret wrote: >> But in any case, if we're going to address this, I'm still not sure this >> patch will be what we want. As per my first comment we need to keep the >> frequency estimation right. > > Totally untested, but I think in principle you would like something like > the snippet below. Would that work? > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > index 04a3ce20da67..6594d875c6ac 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > @@ -6534,8 +6534,13 @@ compute_energy(struct task_struct *p, int dst_cpu, struct perf_domain *pd) > * its pd list and will not be accounted by compute_energy(). > */ > for_each_cpu_and(cpu, pd_mask, cpu_online_mask) { > - unsigned long cpu_util, util_cfs = cpu_util_next(cpu, p, dst_cpu); > + unsigned long util_freq = cpu_util_next(cpu, p, dst_cpu); > + unsigned long util_running = cpu_util_without(cpu, p);
Wouldn't this be the same as:
unsigned long util_running = cpu_util_next(cpu, p, -1);
except some different handling of !last_update_time and 'task_on_rq_queued(p) || current == p)' in cpu_util_without() which shouldn't happen in EAS.
We have quite a lot of util related functions!
[...]
| |