lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 2/5] sched/core: uclamp: Propagate parent clamps
Hi Michal,

On 15-Jul 18:42, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 09:43:54AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> wrote:
> > Since it's possible for a cpu.uclamp.min value to be bigger than the
> > cpu.uclamp.max value, ensure local consistency by restricting each
> > "protection"
> > (i.e. min utilization) with the corresponding "limit" (i.e. max
> > utilization).
> I think this constraint should be mentioned in the Documentation/....

That note comes from the previous review cycle and it's based on a
request from Tejun to align uclamp behaviors with the way the
delegation model is supposed to work.

I guess this part of the documentation:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.html?highlight=protections#resource-distribution-models
should already cover the expected uclamp min/max behaviors.

However, I guess "repetita iuvant" in this case. I'll call this out
explicitly in the description of cpu.uclamp.min.

> > +static void cpu_util_update_eff(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
> > +{
> > + struct cgroup_subsys_state *top_css = css;
> > + struct uclamp_se *uc_se = NULL;
> > + unsigned int eff[UCLAMP_CNT];
> > + unsigned int clamp_id;
> > + unsigned int clamps;
> > +
> > + css_for_each_descendant_pre(css, top_css) {
> > + uc_se = css_tg(css)->parent
> > + ? css_tg(css)->parent->uclamp : NULL;
> > +
> > + for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id) {
> > + /* Assume effective clamps matches requested clamps */
> > + eff[clamp_id] = css_tg(css)->uclamp_req[clamp_id].value;
> > + /* Cap effective clamps with parent's effective clamps */
> > + if (uc_se &&
> > + eff[clamp_id] > uc_se[clamp_id].value) {
> > + eff[clamp_id] = uc_se[clamp_id].value;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + /* Ensure protection is always capped by limit */
> > + eff[UCLAMP_MIN] = min(eff[UCLAMP_MIN], eff[UCLAMP_MAX]);
> > +
> > + /* Propagate most restrictive effective clamps */
> > + clamps = 0x0;
> > + uc_se = css_tg(css)->uclamp;
> (Nitpick only, reassigning child where was parent before decreases
> readibility. IMO)

Did not checked but I think the compiler will figure out it can still
use a single pointer for both assignments.
I'll let's the compiler to its job and add in a dedicated stack var
for the parent pointer.


> > + for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id) {
> > + if (eff[clamp_id] == uc_se[clamp_id].value)
> > + continue;
> > + uc_se[clamp_id].value = eff[clamp_id];
> > + uc_se[clamp_id].bucket_id = uclamp_bucket_id(eff[clamp_id]);
> Shouldn't these writes be synchronized with writes from
> __setscheduler_uclamp()?

You right, the synchronization is introduced by a later patch:

sched/core: uclamp: Update CPU's refcount on TG's clamp changes

Cheers,
Patrick

--
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-16 16:07    [W:0.063 / U:37.032 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site