sched/fair: Add over-utilization/tipping point indicator
Energy-aware scheduling is only meant to be active while the system is _not_ over-utilized. That is, there are spare cycles available to shift tasks around based on their actual utilization to get a more energy-efficient task distribution without depriving any tasks. When above the tipping point task placement is done the traditional way based on load_avg, spreading the tasks across as many cpus as possible based on priority scaled load to preserve smp_nice. Below the tipping point we want to use util_avg instead. We need to define a criteria for when we make the switch. The util_avg for each cpu converges towards 100% regardless of how many additional tasks we may put on it. If we define over-utilized as: sum_{cpus}(rq.cfs.avg.util_avg) + margin > sum_{cpus}(rq.capacity) some individual cpus may be over-utilized running multiple tasks even when the above condition is false. That should be okay as long as we try to spread the tasks out to avoid per-cpu over-utilization as much as possible and if all tasks have the _same_ priority. If the latter isn't true, we have to consider priority to preserve smp_nice. For example, we could have n_cpus nice=-10 util_avg=55% tasks and n_cpus/2 nice=0 util_avg=60% tasks. Balancing based on util_avg we are likely to end up with nice=-10 tasks sharing cpus and nice=0 tasks getting their own as we 1.5*n_cpus tasks in total and 55%+55% is less over-utilized than 55%+60% for those cpus that have to be shared. The system utilization is only 85% of the system capacity, but we are breaking smp_nice. To be sure not to break smp_nice, we have defined over-utilization conservatively as when any cpu in the system is fully utilized at its highest frequency instead: cpu_rq(any).cfs.avg.util_avg + margin > cpu_rq(any).capacity IOW, as soon as one cpu is (nearly) 100% utilized, we switch to load_avg to factor in priority to preserve smp_nice. With this definition, we can skip periodic load-balance as no cpu has an always-running task when the system is not over-utilized. All tasks will be periodic and we can balance them at wake-up. This conservative condition does however mean that some scenarios that could benefit from energy-aware decisions even if one cpu is fully utilized would not get those benefits. For systems where some cpus might have reduced capacity on some cpus (RT-pressure and/or big.LITTLE), we want periodic load-balance checks as soon a just a single cpu is fully utilized as it might one of those with reduced capacity and in that case we want to migrate it. [ peterz: Added a comment explaining why new tasks are not accounted during overutilization detection. ] Signed-off-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-13-quentin.perret@arm.comSigned-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment