All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	rickyiu@google.com, wvw@google.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
	xuewen.yan94@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] sched: Fix UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE setting
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:45:14 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YNyRisb3bNhDR0Rh@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210630145848.htb7pnwsl2gao77x@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

Hi Qais,

On Wednesday 30 Jun 2021 at 15:58:48 (+0100), Qais Yousef wrote:
> I just realized this needs
> 
> 	if (clamp_id == UCLAMP_MAX)
> 		rq->uclamp_flags &= ~UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE;
> 
> The code is only set for UCLAMP_MAX, so should be cleared for UCLAMP_MAX too.
> 
> Though there's ugly overload here:
> 
> 	if (!(rq->uclamp_flags & UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE))
> 		return;
> 
> This check would fail prematurely if UCLAMP_MAX was reset before UCLAMP_MIN.
> The code before your change would reset both then do the clear. But now when we
> do it from here, we need to be more careful about that.

Right, although this should all work fine as-is, I agree that relying on
the calling order is a bit dodgy and might cause issues in the long run.

What do you think of this instead?

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index b094da4c5fea..c0b999a8062a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -980,7 +980,6 @@ static inline void uclamp_idle_reset(struct rq *rq, enum uclamp_id clamp_id,
        if (!(rq->uclamp_flags & UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE))
                return;

-       rq->uclamp_flags &= ~UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE;
        WRITE_ONCE(rq->uclamp[clamp_id].value, clamp_value);
 }

@@ -1253,6 +1252,10 @@ static inline void uclamp_rq_inc(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)

        for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id)
                uclamp_rq_inc_id(rq, p, clamp_id);
+
+       /* Reset clamp idle holding when there is one RUNNABLE task */
+       if (rq->uclamp_flags & UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE)
+               rq->uclamp_flags &= ~UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE;
 }

 static inline void uclamp_rq_dec(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
@@ -1300,6 +1303,13 @@ uclamp_update_active(struct task_struct *p, enum uclamp_id clamp_id)
        if (p->uclamp[clamp_id].active) {
                uclamp_rq_dec_id(rq, p, clamp_id);
                uclamp_rq_inc_id(rq, p, clamp_id);
+
+               /*
+                * Make sure to clear the idle flag if we've transiently reached
+                * 0 uclamp active tasks on the rq.
+                */
+               if (rq->uclamp_flags & UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE)
+                       rq->uclamp_flags &= ~UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE;
        }

        task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);

  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-30 15:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-23 12:34 [PATCH v3 0/3] sched: A few uclamp fixes and tweaks Quentin Perret
2021-06-23 12:34 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] sched: Fix UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE setting Quentin Perret
2021-06-30 14:58   ` Qais Yousef
2021-06-30 15:45     ` Quentin Perret [this message]
2021-07-01 10:07       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-01 11:08         ` Qais Yousef
2021-07-01 12:43           ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-01 14:57             ` Qais Yousef
2021-07-01 15:20               ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-01 17:59                 ` Qais Yousef
2021-07-02 11:54                   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-01 11:06       ` Qais Yousef
2021-06-23 12:34 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] sched: Skip priority checks with SCHED_FLAG_KEEP_PARAMS Quentin Perret
2021-06-30 16:01   ` Qais Yousef
2021-06-23 12:34 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] sched: Introduce RLIMIT_UCLAMP Quentin Perret
2021-07-01 10:50   ` Qais Yousef
2021-07-01 12:05     ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-01 17:52       ` Qais Yousef
2021-07-02 12:28         ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-08 11:36           ` Qais Yousef
2021-07-19 11:44             ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-26 16:22               ` Qais Yousef

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YNyRisb3bNhDR0Rh@google.com \
    --to=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
    --cc=rickyiu@google.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=wvw@google.com \
    --cc=xuewen.yan94@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.