[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEi0qNkAK_3a_2x9BgvyEC+bFvckGFoQX1fjFba6boC1ws_R5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 03:46:13 -0700
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel.opensrc@...il.com>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/5] sched/core: add capacity constraints to CPU controller
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Patrick Bellasi
<patrick.bellasi@....com> wrote:
> The CPU CGroup controller allows to assign a specified (maximum)
> bandwidth to tasks within a group, however it does not enforce any
> constraint on how such bandwidth can be consumed.
> With the integration of schedutil, the scheduler has now the proper
> information about a task to select the most suitable frequency to
> satisfy tasks needs.
[..]
> +static u64 cpu_capacity_min_read_u64(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css,
> + struct cftype *cft)
> +{
> + struct task_group *tg;
> + u64 min_capacity;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + tg = css_tg(css);
> + min_capacity = tg->cap_clamp[CAP_CLAMP_MIN];
Shouldn't the cap_clamp be accessed with READ_ONCE (and WRITE_ONCE in
the write path) to avoid load-tearing?
Thanks,
Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists