From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/15] sched/core: uclamp: Add system default clamps Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 15:29:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20190318142910.GR6058@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20190208100554.32196-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190208100554.32196-4-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190313201821.GW2482@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190318121804.tr3myhtgczvovmkq@e110439-lin> <20190318131050.GQ6058@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190318142152.44biczhoby44xlfz@e110439-lin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190318142152.44biczhoby44xlfz@e110439-lin> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick Bellasi 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 Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 02:21:52PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > On 18-Mar 14:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:18:04PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > On 13-Mar 21:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:05:42AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > > > +static void uclamp_fork(struct task_struct *p) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + unsigned int clamp_id; > > > > > + > > > > > + if (unlikely(!p->sched_class->uclamp_enabled)) > > > > > + return; > > > > > + > > > > > + for (clamp_id = 0; clamp_id < UCLAMP_CNT; ++clamp_id) > > > > > + p->uclamp[clamp_id].active = false; > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > Because in that case .active == false, and copy_process() will have done > > > > thr right thing? > > > > > > Don't really get what you mean here? :/ > > > > Why don't we have to set .active=false when > > !sched_class->uclamp_enabled? > > Ok, got it. > > In principle because: > - FAIR and RT will have uclamp_enabled > - DL cannot fork > > ... thus, yes, it seems that the check above is not necessary anyway. > > Moreover, as per one of your comments in another message, we still need > to cover the "reset on fork" case for FAIR and RT. Thus, I'm going to > completely remove the support check in uclamp_fork and we always reset > active for all classes. Right, thanks!