From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/16] sched/core: uclamp: add CPU's clamp groups
 accounting
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 21:12:09 +0200
Message-ID: <20180913191209.GY24082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180828135324.21976-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180828135324.21976-4-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
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: <20180828135324.21976-4-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
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>, 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-pm@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:53:11PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> +static inline void uclamp_cpu_get_id(struct task_struct *p,
> +				     struct rq *rq, int clamp_id)
> +{
> +	struct uclamp_group *uc_grp;
> +	struct uclamp_cpu *uc_cpu;
> +	int clamp_value;
> +	int group_id;
> +
> +	/* Every task must reference a clamp group */
> +	group_id = p->uclamp[clamp_id].group_id;

> +}
> +
> +static inline void uclamp_cpu_put_id(struct task_struct *p,
> +				     struct rq *rq, int clamp_id)
> +{
> +	struct uclamp_group *uc_grp;
> +	struct uclamp_cpu *uc_cpu;
> +	unsigned int clamp_value;
> +	int group_id;
> +
> +	/* New tasks don't have a previous clamp group */
> +	group_id = p->uclamp[clamp_id].group_id;
> +	if (group_id == UCLAMP_NOT_VALID)
> +		return;

*confused*, so on enqueue they must have a group_id, but then on dequeue
they might no longer have?

> +}

> @@ -1110,6 +1313,7 @@ static inline void enqueue_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
>  	if (!(flags & ENQUEUE_RESTORE))
>  		sched_info_queued(rq, p);
>  
> +	uclamp_cpu_get(rq, p);
>  	p->sched_class->enqueue_task(rq, p, flags);
>  }
>  
> @@ -1121,6 +1325,7 @@ static inline void dequeue_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
>  	if (!(flags & DEQUEUE_SAVE))
>  		sched_info_dequeued(rq, p);
>  
> +	uclamp_cpu_put(rq, p);
>  	p->sched_class->dequeue_task(rq, p, flags);
>  }

The ordering, is that right? We get while the task isn't enqueued yet,
which would suggest we put when the task is dequeued.