From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Bellasi Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 1/6] sched/core: uclamp: Extend CPU's cgroup controller Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 16:10:21 +0100 Message-ID: <87imr74sfh.fsf@arm.com> References: <20190802090853.4810-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190802090853.4810-2-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190806161133.GA18532@blackbody.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-reply-to: <20190806161133.GA18532@blackbody.suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Tejun Heo , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Vincent Guittot , Viresh Kumar , Paul Turner , Quentin Perret , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , Steve Muckle , Suren Baghdasaryan , Alessio Balsini On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 17:11:34 +0100, Michal Koutn=C3=BD wrote... > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:08:48AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote: >> +static ssize_t cpu_uclamp_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf, >> + size_t nbytes, loff_t off, >> + enum uclamp_id clamp_id) >> +{ >> + struct uclamp_request req; >> + struct task_group *tg; >> + >> + req =3D capacity_from_percent(buf); >> + if (req.ret) >> + return req.ret; >> + >> + rcu_read_lock(); > This should be the uclamp_mutex. > > (The compound results of the series is correct as the lock is introduced > in "sched/core: uclamp: Propagate parent clamps". > This is just for the happiness of cherry-pickers/bisectors.) Right, will move the uclamp_mutex introduction in this patch instead of in the following one. >> +static inline void cpu_uclamp_print(struct seq_file *sf, >> + enum uclamp_id clamp_id) >> +{ >> [...] >> + rcu_read_lock(); >> + tg =3D css_tg(seq_css(sf)); >> + util_clamp =3D tg->uclamp_req[clamp_id].value; >> + rcu_read_unlock(); > Why is the rcu_read_lock() needed here? (I'm considering the comment in > of_css() that should apply here (and it seems that similar uses in other > seq_file handlers also skip this).) So, looks like that since we are in the context of a file operation, all the cgroup's attribute read/write functions are implicitly save. IOW, we don't need an RCU lock since the TG data structures are granted to be always available till the end of the read/write operation. That seems to make sense... I'm wondering if keeping the RCU look is still a precaution for possible future code/assumption changes or just an unnecessary overhead? >> @@ -7369,6 +7506,20 @@ static struct cftype cpu_legacy_files[] =3D { >> [...] >> + .name =3D "uclamp.min", >> [...] >> + .name =3D "uclamp.max", > I don't see technical reasons why uclamp couldn't work on legacy > hierarchy and Tejun acked the series, despite that I'll ask -- should > the new attributes be exposed in v1 controller hierarchy (taking into > account the legacy API is sort of frozen and potential maintenance needs > spanning both hierarchies)? Not sure to get what you mean here: I'm currently exposing uclamp to both v1 and v2 hierarchies. Best, Patrick -- #include Patrick Bellasi