From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/16] sched/core: Add uclamp_util_with()
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:51:06 +0000
Message-ID: <20190123145106.zaqb3d6l65rs5lg6@e110439-lin>
References: <20190115101513.2822-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20190115101513.2822-11-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20190123133324.GY27931@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190123133324.GY27931@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

On 23-Jan 14:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:15:07AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > +static __always_inline
> > +unsigned int uclamp_util_with(struct rq *rq, unsigned int util,
> > +			      struct task_struct *p)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned int min_util = READ_ONCE(rq->uclamp[UCLAMP_MIN].value);
> >  	unsigned int max_util = READ_ONCE(rq->uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX].value);
> >  
> > +	if (p) {
> > +		min_util = max(min_util, uclamp_effective_value(p, UCLAMP_MIN));
> > +		max_util = max(max_util, uclamp_effective_value(p, UCLAMP_MAX));
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> Like I think you mentioned earlier; this doesn't look right at all.

What we wanna do here is to compute what _will_ be the clamp values of
a CPU if we enqueue *p on it.

The code above starts from the current CPU clamp value and mimics what
uclamp will do in case we move the task there... which is always a max
aggregation.

> Should that not be something like:
> 
> 	lo = READ_ONCE(rq->uclamp[UCLAMP_MIN].value);
> 	hi = READ_ONCE(rq->uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX].value);
> 
> 	min_util = clamp(uclamp_effective(p, UCLAMP_MIN), lo, hi);
> 	max_util = clamp(uclamp_effective(p, UCLAMP_MAX), lo, hi);

Here you end up with a restriction of the task clamp (effective)
clamps values considering the CPU clamps... which is different.

Why do you think we should do that?... perhaps I'm missing something.

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi