From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched/core: uclamp: add CPU clamp groups accounting
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:15:31 +0200
Message-ID: <20180413111531.GE4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180409165615.2326-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180409165615.2326-2-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180413082648.GP4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180413102202.GN4129@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180413110426.GQ14248@e110439-lin>
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: <20180413110426.GQ14248@e110439-lin>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:04:26PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 13-Apr 12:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:26:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 05:56:09PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > > +static inline void uclamp_cpu_get(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int clamp_id)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct uclamp_cpu *uc_cpu = &cpu_rq(cpu)->uclamp[clamp_id];
> > > 
> > > > +static inline void uclamp_cpu_put(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int clamp_id)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct uclamp_cpu *uc_cpu = &cpu_rq(cpu)->uclamp[clamp_id];
> > > 
> > > That all seems daft, since you already have rq at the call site.
> > > 
> > > > +static inline void uclamp_task_update(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int cpu = cpu_of(rq);
> > > > +	int clamp_id;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* The idle task does not affect CPU's clamps */
> > > > +	if (unlikely(p->sched_class == &idle_sched_class))
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +	/* DEADLINE tasks do not affect CPU's clamps */
> > > > +	if (unlikely(p->sched_class == &dl_sched_class))
> > > > +		return;
> > > 
> > > This is wrong; it misses the stop_sched_class.
> > > 
> > > And since you're looking at sched_class anyway, maybe put a marker in
> > > there:
> > > 
> > > 	if (!p->sched_class->has_clamping)
> > > 		return;
> > 
> > Alternatively, we could simply add uclamp_task_{en,de}queue() into
> > {en,de}queue_task_{fair,rt}().
> 
> I like better your first proposal, I think it makes sense to factor
> out in core code used by both RT and FAIR the same way.
> 
> Do you have a strong preference?

The second is probably faster as it avoids the load+branch; then again,
without LTO you'll get an actual call in return. Dunno...