lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 12/16] sched/core: uclamp: Extend CPU's cgroup controller
Hello,

Generally looks good to me. Some nitpicks.

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 09:42:13AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> @@ -951,6 +951,12 @@ controller implements weight and absolute bandwidth limit models for
> normal scheduling policy and absolute bandwidth allocation model for
> realtime scheduling policy.
>
> +Cycles distribution is based, by default, on a temporal base and it
> +does not account for the frequency at which tasks are executed.
> +The (optional) utilization clamping support allows to enforce a minimum
> +bandwidth, which should always be provided by a CPU, and a maximum bandwidth,
> +which should never be exceeded by a CPU.

I kinda wonder whether the term bandwidth is a bit confusing because
it's also used for cpu.max/min. Would just calling it frequency be
clearer?

> +static ssize_t cpu_uclamp_min_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> + char *buf, size_t nbytes,
> + loff_t off)
> +{
> + struct task_group *tg;
> + u64 min_value;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = uclamp_scale_from_percent(buf, &min_value);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + if (min_value > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> + return -ERANGE;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> + tg = css_tg(of_css(of));
> + if (tg == &root_task_group) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }

I don't think you need the above check.

> + if (tg->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MIN].value == min_value)
> + goto out;
> + if (tg->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MAX].value < min_value) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;

So, uclamp.max limits the maximum freq% can get and uclamp.min limits
hte maximum freq% protection can get in the subtree. Let's say
uclamp.max is 50% and uclamp.min is 100%. It means that protection is
not limited but the actual freq% is limited upto 50%, which isn't
necessarily invalid. For a simple example, a user might be saying
that they want to get whatever protection they can get from its parent
but wanna limit eventual freq at 50% and it isn't too difficult to
imagine cases where the two knobs are configured separately especially
configuration is being managed hierarchically / automatically.

tl;dr is that we don't need the above restriction and shouldn't
generally be restricting configurations when they don't need to.

Thanks.

--
tejun

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-22 17:04    [W:0.151 / U:4.200 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site