Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] sched/uclamp: add SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_RESET flag to reset uclamp

Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-04T09:45:15Z

On 03/11/2020 14:48, Qais Yousef wrote:
> Oops, +Juri for real this time.
>
> On 11/03/20 13:46, Qais Yousef wrote:
>> Hi Yun
>>
>> +Juri (A question for you below)
>>
>> On 11/03/20 10:37, Yun Hsiang wrote:

[...]

>>> include/uapi/linux/sched.h | 7 +++--
>>> kernel/sched/core.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>> 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/sched.h b/include/uapi/linux/sched.h
>>> index 3bac0a8ceab2..6c823ddb1a1e 100644
>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/sched.h
>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/sched.h
>>> @@ -132,17 +132,20 @@ struct clone_args {
>>> #define SCHED_FLAG_KEEP_PARAMS 0x10
>>> #define SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_MIN 0x20
>>> #define SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_MAX 0x40
>>> +#define SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_RESET 0x80
>>
>> The new flag needs documentation about how it should be used. It has a none
>> obvious policy that we can't expect users to just get it.

See (1) further below.

>>> #define SCHED_FLAG_KEEP_ALL (SCHED_FLAG_KEEP_POLICY | \
>>> SCHED_FLAG_KEEP_PARAMS)
>>>
>>> #define SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP (SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_MIN | \
>>> - SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_MAX)
>>> + SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_MAX | \
>>> + SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_RESET)
>>
>> Either do this..
>>
>>>
>>> #define SCHED_FLAG_ALL (SCHED_FLAG_RESET_ON_FORK | \
>>> SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM | \
>>> SCHED_FLAG_DL_OVERRUN | \
>>> SCHED_FLAG_KEEP_ALL | \
>>> - SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP)
>>> + SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP | \
>>> + SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_RESET)
>>
>> Or this.
>>
>> I checked glibc and it seems they don't use the sched.h from linux and more
>> surprisingly they don't seem to have a wrapper for sched_setattr(). bionic libc
>> from Android does take sched.h from linux, but didn't find any user. So we
>> might be okay with modifying these here.

Schould be package linux-libc-dev. Debian 10 (buster-backports)
5.8.10-1~bpo10+1 contains the uclamp bits as well.

/usr/include/linux/sched/types.h
/usr/include/linux/sched.h

/usr/include/linux/sched.h contains SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP and
SCHED_FLAG_ALL.

But there is no glibc wrapper for sched_[sg]etattr so syscall wrapping
is still needed.

>> I still would like us to document better what we expect from these defines.
>> Are they for internal kernel use or really for user space? If the former we
>> should take them out of here. If the latter, then adding the RESET is dangerous
>> as it'll cause an observable change in behavior; that is if an application was
>> using SCHED_FLAG_ALL or SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP to update the UTIL_MIN/MAX of
>> a task, existing binaries will find out now that instead of modifying the value
>> they're actually resetting them.

I doubt that any application uses SCHED_FLAG_ALL so far since it already
mixes e.g. DL and UCLAMP stuff. AFAIK the only tools supporting uclamp
so far is rt-app and uclampset, which both use their own files for DL
and uclamp definition.

[..]

>> Add the policy part of the commit message as a documentation to this function
>> please.
>>
>> ie:
>>
>> /*
>> * The policy is
>> * _CLAMP_RESET => reset both min and max
>> * _CLAMP_RESET | _CLAMP_MIN => reset min value
>> * _CLAMP_RESET | _CLAMP_MAX => reset max value
>> * _CLAMP_RESET | _CLAMP_MIN | _CLAMP_MAX => reset both min and max
>> */
>>

(1) Related to documentation, wouldn't it be better to document in
include/uapi/linux/sched.h, i.e. where the flags are defined, so it gets
exported via linux-libc-dev?
Like it's done for struct sched_attr members in
include/uapi/linux/sched/types.h.

[...]

>>> - if (likely(!(attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP)))
>>> + if (likely(!(attr->sched_flags && SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP)) ||
>>> + attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_RESET)
>>> return;

Another multi line statement so the 'return' could go with braces.

>>>
>>> - if (attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_MIN) {
>>> + if (attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_MIN)
>>> uclamp_se_set(&p->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MIN],
>>> - attr->sched_util_min, true);
>>> - }
>>> + attr->sched_util_min, true);
>>>
>>> - if (attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_MAX) {
>>> + if (attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_MAX)
>>> uclamp_se_set(&p->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MAX],
>>> - attr->sched_util_max, true);
>>> - }
>>> + attr->sched_util_max, true);
>>
>> These two hunks seem unrelated too. Multi line statement should still have
>> braces AFAIK. Why change it?

+1 …