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!
[...]
