During load-balance, groups classified as group_misfit_task are filtered
out if they do not pass
group_smaller_max_cpu_capacity(<candidate group>, <local group>);
which itself employs fits_capacity() to compare the sgc->max_capacity of
both groups.
Due to the underlying margin, fits_capacity(X, 1024) will return false for
any X > 819. Tough luck, the capacity_orig's on e.g. the Pixel 4 are
{261, 871, 1024}. If a CPU-bound task ends up on one of those "medium"
CPUs, misfit migration will never intentionally upmigrate it to a CPU of
higher capacity due to the aforementioned margin.
One may argue the 20% margin of fits_capacity() is excessive in the advent
of counter-enhanced load tracking (APERF/MPERF, AMUs), but one point here
is that fits_capacity() is meant to compare a utilization value to a
capacity value, whereas here it is being used to compare two capacity
values. As CPU capacity and task utilization have different dynamics, a
sensible approach here would be to add a new helper dedicated to comparing
CPU capacities.
Also note that comparing capacity extrema of local and source sched_group's
doesn't make much sense when at the day of the day the imbalance will be
pulled by a known env->dst_cpu, whose capacity can be anywhere within the
local group's capacity extrema.
While at it, replace group_smaller_{min, max}_cpu_capacity() with
comparisons of the source group's min/max capacity and the destination
CPU's capacity.
Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210407220628.3798191-4-valentin.schneider@arm.com
4aed8aa415