From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Bellasi Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/15] sched/core: uclamp: Add CPU's clamp buckets refcounting Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 11:45:51 +0000 Message-ID: <20190314114551.6kfozh6rpw5mornb@e110439-lin> References: <20190208100554.32196-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190208100554.32196-2-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190313140925.GE5922@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190313152359.lkyzel7fakjoi5hu@e110439-lin> <20190313194619.GR2482@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190313194619.GR2482@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , 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 List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 13-Mar 20:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 03:23:59PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > On 13-Mar 15:09, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:05:40AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > > > +static inline void uclamp_rq_update(struct rq *rq, unsigned int clamp_id) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct uclamp_bucket *bucket = rq->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket; > > > > + unsigned int max_value = uclamp_none(clamp_id); > > > > > > That's 1024 for uclamp_max > > > > > > > + unsigned int bucket_id; > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * Both min and max clamps are MAX aggregated, thus the topmost > > > > + * bucket with some tasks defines the rq's clamp value. > > > > + */ > > > > + bucket_id = UCLAMP_BUCKETS; > > > > + do { > > > > + --bucket_id; > > > > + if (!rq->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket[bucket_id].tasks) > > > > + continue; > > > > + max_value = bucket[bucket_id].value; > > > > > > but this will then _lower_ it. That's not a MAX aggregate. > > > > For uclamp_max we want max_value=1024 when there are no active tasks, > > which means: no max clamp enforced on CFS/RT "idle" cpus. > > > > If instead there are active RT/CFS tasks then we want the clamp value > > of the max group, which means: MAX aggregate active clamps. > > > > That's what the code above does and the comment says. > > That's (obviously) not how I read it.... maybe something like: > > static inline void uclamp_rq_update(struct rq *rq, unsigned int clamp_id) > { > struct uclamp_bucket *bucket = rq->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket; > int i; > > /* > * Since both min and max clamps are max aggregated, find the > * top most bucket with tasks in. > */ > for (i = UCLMAP_BUCKETS-1; i>=0; i--) { > if (!bucket[i].tasks) > continue; > return bucket[i].value; > } > > /* No tasks -- default clamp value */ > return uclamp_none(clamp_id); > } > > would make it clearer? Fine for me, I'll then change the name in something else since that's not more an "_update" by moving the WRITE_ONCE into the caller. -- #include Patrick Bellasi