lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/3] sched: Fix UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE setting
On 07/01/21 15:20, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > Right or maybe we can just check that uclamp_id == UCLAMP_MAX here and
> > > we should be good to go? That is, what about the below?
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to do this from uclamp_idle_reset() then?
>
> That should work too, but clearing the flag outside of
> uclamp_rq_inc_id() feels a little bit more robust to ordering
> issues.
>
> Specifically, uclamp_rq_inc() has the following pattern:
>
> for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id)
> uclamp_rq_inc_id(rq, p , clamp_id);
>
> if (rq->uclamp_flags & UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE)
> rq->uclamp_flags &= ~UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE;
>
> So, if we change this to clear the flag from
> uclamp_rq_inc_id()->uclamp_idle_reset() then we'll have issues if
> (for example) for_each_clamp_id()'s order changes in the future.
> IOW, it feels cleaner to not create side effects in uclamp_rq_inc_id()
> that impact the idle flag given that its very own behaviour depends on
> the flag.
>
> WDYT?

Do the clearing from outside the loop then to keep the pattern consistent?

Anyway, I think there's no clear objective advantage. So I'll trust your
judgement and promise not to complain with your final choice ;-)

Cheers

--
Qais Yousef

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-01 20:00    [W:0.104 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site