linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 03/15] sched/core: uclamp: Add system default clamps

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190318142910.GR6058@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 18 Mar 2019 15:29:10 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
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 Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 02:21:52PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 18-Mar 14:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:18:04PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > 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? :/
> > 
> > Why don't we have to set .active=false when
> > !sched_class->uclamp_enabled?
> 
> Ok, got it.
> 
> In principle because:
> - FAIR and RT will have uclamp_enabled
> - DL cannot fork
> 
> ... thus, yes, it seems that the check above is not necessary anyway.
> 
> Moreover, as per one of your comments in another message, we still need
> to cover the "reset on fork" case for FAIR and RT. Thus, I'm going to
> completely remove the support check in uclamp_fork and we always reset
> active for all classes.

Right, thanks!