linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 04/16] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 9 May 2019 10:10:57 +0100
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 v8 04/16] sched/core: uclamp: Add system default clamps

On 08-May 21:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 09:07:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:41:40AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > +static inline struct uclamp_se
> > > +uclamp_eff_get(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct uclamp_se uc_req = p->uclamp_req[clamp_id];
> > > +	struct uclamp_se uc_max = uclamp_default[clamp_id];
> > > +
> > > +	/* System default restrictions always apply */
> > > +	if (unlikely(uc_req.value > uc_max.value))
> > > +		return uc_max;
> > > +
> > > +	return uc_req;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline unsigned int
> > > +uclamp_eff_bucket_id(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct uclamp_se uc_eff;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Task currently refcounted: use back-annotated (effective) bucket */
> > > +	if (p->uclamp[clamp_id].active)
> > > +		return p->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket_id;
> > > +
> > > +	uc_eff = uclamp_eff_get(p, clamp_id);
> > > +
> > > +	return uc_eff.bucket_id;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +unsigned int uclamp_eff_value(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct uclamp_se uc_eff;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Task currently refcounted: use back-annotated (effective) value */
> > > +	if (p->uclamp[clamp_id].active)
> > > +		return p->uclamp[clamp_id].value;
> > > +
> > > +	uc_eff = uclamp_eff_get(p, clamp_id);
> > > +
> > > +	return uc_eff.value;
> > > +}
> > 
> > This is 'wrong' because:
> > 
> >   uclamp_eff_value(p,id) := uclamp_eff(p,id).value
> 
> Clearly I means to say the above does not hold with the given
> implementation, while the naming would suggest it does.

Not sure to completely get your point...

AFAIU, what you call uclamp_eff(p, id).value is the "value" member of
the struct returned by uclamp_eff_get(p,id), which is back annotate
by uclamp_rq_inc_id(p, rq, id) in:

   p->uclamp[clamp_id].value

when a task becomes RUNNABLE.

> > Which seems to suggest the uclamp_eff_*() functions want another name.

That function returns the effective value of a task, which is either:
 1. the back annotated value for a RUNNABLE task
or
 2. the aggregation of task-specific, system-default and cgroup values
    for a non RUNNABLE task.

> > Also, suppose the above would be true; does GCC really generate better
> > code for the LHS compared to the RHS?

It generate "sane" code which implements the above logic and allows
to know that whenever we call uclamp_eff_value(p,id) we get the most
updated effective value for a task, independently from its {!}RUNNABLE
state.

I would keep the function but, since Suren also complained also about
the name... perhaps I should come up with a better name? Proposals?

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi