On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:41:47AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> @@ -6484,11 +6494,29 @@ compute_energy(struct task_struct *p, int dst_cpu,
> struct perf_domain *pd)
> * it will not appear in its pd list and will not be accounted
> * by compute_energy().
> */
> - for_each_cpu_and(cpu, perf_domain_span(pd), cpu_online_mask) {
> - util = cpu_util_next(cpu, p, dst_cpu);
> - util = schedutil_energy_util(cpu, util);
> - max_util = max(util, max_util);
> - sum_util += util;
> + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, pd_mask, cpu_online_mask) {
> + util_cfs = cpu_util_next(cpu, p, dst_cpu);
> +
> + /*
> + * Busy time computation: utilization clamping is not
> + * required since the ratio (sum_util / cpu_capacity)
> + * is already enough to scale the EM reported power
> + * consumption at the (eventually clamped) cpu_capacity.
> + */
> + sum_util += schedutil_cpu_util(cpu, util_cfs, cpu_cap,
> + ENERGY_UTIL, NULL);
> +
> + /*
> + * 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
> + * FREQUENCY_UTIL's utilization can be max OPP.
> + */
> + tsk = cpu == dst_cpu ? p : NULL;
> + cpu_util = schedutil_cpu_util(cpu, util_cfs, cpu_cap,
> + FREQUENCY_UTIL, tsk);
> + max_util = max(max_util, cpu_util);
> }
That's a bit unfortunate; having to do both variants here, but I see
why. Nothing to be done about it I suppose.
