[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 16:08:10 +0100
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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>,
Alessio Balsini <balsini@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/6] sched/core: uclamp: Propagate parent clamps
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 17:11:53 +0100, Michal Koutný wrote...
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:08:49AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com> wrote:
>> @@ -7095,6 +7149,7 @@ static ssize_t cpu_uclamp_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
>> if (req.ret)
>> return req.ret;
>>
>> + mutex_lock(&uclamp_mutex);
>> rcu_read_lock();
>>
>> tg = css_tg(of_css(of));
>> @@ -7107,7 +7162,11 @@ static ssize_t cpu_uclamp_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
>> */
>> tg->uclamp_pct[clamp_id] = req.percent;
>>
>> + /* Update effective clamps to track the most restrictive value */
>> + cpu_util_update_eff(of_css(of));
>> +
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> + mutex_unlock(&uclamp_mutex);
> Following my remarks to "[PATCH v13 1/6] sched/core: uclamp: Extend
> CPU's cgroup", I wonder if the rcu_read_lock() couldn't be moved right
> before cpu_util_update_eff(). And by extension rcu_read_(un)lock could
> be hidden into cpu_util_update_eff() closer to its actual need.
Well, if I've got correctly your comment in the previous message, I
would say that at this stage we don't need RCU looks at all.
Reason being that cpu_util_update_eff() gets called only from
cpu_uclamp_write() which is from an ongoing write operation on a cgroup
attribute and thus granted to be available.
We will eventually need to move the RCU look only down the stack when
uclamp_update_active_tasks() gets called to update the RUNNABLE tasks on
a RQ... or perhaps we don't need them since we already get the
task_rq_lock() for each task we visit.
Is that correct?
Cheers,
Patrick
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists