[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190318121804.tr3myhtgczvovmkq@e110439-lin>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:18:04 +0000
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/15] sched/core: uclamp: Add system default clamps
On 13-Mar 21:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:05:42AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > +static void uclamp_fork(struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int clamp_id;
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(!p->sched_class->uclamp_enabled))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + for (clamp_id = 0; clamp_id < UCLAMP_CNT; ++clamp_id)
> > + p->uclamp[clamp_id].active = false;
> > +}
>
> Because in that case .active == false, and copy_process() will have done
> thr right thing?
Don't really get what you mean here? :/
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists