public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/debug: Fix requested task uclamp values shown in procfs
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 07:25:47 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200511015547.GP19464@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jhjblmvu5nn.mognet@arm.com>

On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 05:16:28PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> 
> On 10/05/20 13:56, Pavankumar Kondeti wrote:
> > The intention of commit 96e74ebf8d59 ("sched/debug: Add task uclamp
> > values to SCHED_DEBUG procfs") was to print requested and effective
> > task uclamp values. The requested values printed are read from p->uclamp,
> > which holds the last effective values. Fix this by printing the values
> > from p->uclamp_req.
> >
> > Fixes: 96e74ebf8d59 ("sched/debug: Add task uclamp values to SCHED_DEBUG procfs")
> > Signed-off-by: Pavankumar Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>
> 
> Argh, Qais pointed this out to me ~ a week ago, and I left this in my todo
> stack. I goofed up, sorry!
> 
> As Pavan points out, p->uclamp[foo] is just a cache of uclamp_eff_value(p,
> foo) from the last time p was enqueued and runnable - what we are
> interested in is indeed comparing this with the *requested* value.
> 
> I wanted to send an example along with a patch, I guess that's the kick I
> needed!
> 
> 
> My setup is a busy loop, its per-task clamps are set to (256, 768) via
> sched_setattr(), and it's shoved in a cpu cgroup with uclamp settings of
> (50%, 50%)
> 
> On the current master (e99332e7b4cd ("gcc-10: mark more functions __init to
> avoid section mismatch warnings")), this gives me:
> 
>   $ uclamp-get $PID # via sched_getattr()
>   uclamp.min=256 uclamp.max=768
> 
>   $ cat /proc/$PID/sched | grep uclamp
>   uclamp.min                                   :                  256
>   uclamp.max                                   :                  512
>   effective uclamp.min                         :                  256
>   effective uclamp.max                         :                  512
> 
> With Pavan's patch, I get:
> 
>   $ uclamp-get $PID # via sched_getattr()
>   uclamp.min=256 uclamp.max=768
> 
>   $ cat /proc/$PID/sched | grep uclamp
>   uclamp.min                                   :                  256
>   uclamp.max                                   :                  768
>   effective uclamp.min                         :                  256
>   effective uclamp.max                         :                  512
> 
> 
> Minor print nit below, otherwise:
> Tested-and-reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
> 
> Peter/Ingo, any chance this can go to sched/urgent? I know it's a debug
> interface, but I'd rather have it land in a shape that makes sense. Again,
> apologies for the goof.
> 
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/debug.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/debug.c b/kernel/sched/debug.c
> > index a562df5..239970b 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/debug.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/debug.c
> > @@ -948,8 +948,8 @@ void proc_sched_show_task(struct task_struct *p, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> >       P(se.avg.util_est.enqueued);
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK
> > -	__PS("uclamp.min", p->uclamp[UCLAMP_MIN].value);
> > -	__PS("uclamp.max", p->uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX].value);
> > +	__PS("uclamp.min", p->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MIN].value);
> > +	__PS("uclamp.max", p->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MAX].value);
> 
> While we're at it, I'd prepend this with "requested".
> 
> >       __PS("effective uclamp.min", uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MIN));
> >       __PS("effective uclamp.max", uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MAX));
> >  #endif

Thanks Valentin for taking a look. I have added "requested" prefix and sent
the patch.

Thanks,
Pavan

-- 
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-11  1:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-10 12:56 [PATCH] sched/debug: Fix requested task uclamp values shown in procfs Pavankumar Kondeti
2020-05-10 16:16 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-05-11  1:55   ` Pavan Kondeti [this message]
2020-05-19 18:44 ` [tip: sched/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Pavankumar Kondeti

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200511015547.GP19464@codeaurora.org \
    --to=pkondeti@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox